A comparison of mid-forehead and axillary temperatures in newborn intensive care

Robertson-Smith, Joanne; McCaffrey, Frances; Sayers, Rachel; Williams, Sheila; Taylor, B. J.

doi:10.1038/jp.2014.148

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research hypothesized that the two measurement methods do not provide the same results; however, their differences need to be analyzed in depth to avoid errors in the clinical management of pediatric patients. The results of our data showed that a 0.41°C statistically significant mean difference exists between the two methods, ranging between −1.80 and +2.40, and these results are similar to those of other studies (Can et al, 2010;Robertson-Smith et al, 2015;Sethi et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Digital Axillary and Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers for Children

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Axillary digital thermometers (ADTs) and non-contact (infrared) forehead thermometers (NCIFTs) are commonly used in pediatric settings, where an incorrect body temperature measurement may delay treatments or lead to incorrect diagnoses and therapies. Several studies comparing ADT or NCIFT with other methods have found conflicting results. To investigate whether ADT and NCIFT can be used interchangeably, a comparative observational study was conducted involving 205 children aged 0 to 14 years who were consecutively admitted to the pediatric emergency department. The Bland-Altman plot illustrated agreement between the two methods. A total of 217 pairs of measurements were compared; axillary measurements showed average values significantly higher than forehead measurements (37.52°C and 37.12°C; t = 7.42, p = .000), with a mean difference of 0.41°C between the two methods (range = -1.80 and +2.40). In this setting and population, ADT and NCIFT cannot be used interchangeably.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Digital Axillary and Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers for Children

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is similar to the reports of Sollai [1], Chiappini [12] and De Curtis [9] who also reported a good agreement between NTIT and mercury thermometers. This is however contrary to the findings of Sethi [2], Jarvis [7] and Robertson-Smith [8] who reported poor agreement between digital axillary and forehead infra-red thermometers. The reason for the disparity may be due to the fact these authors compared temperature readings using axillary digital thermometers and NTIT as opposed to axillary Mercury-in-glass thermometers used in this study; further stressing the fact that temperature measurement differed with the device used in measuring it [3].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

“…This connotes that the use of infra-red thermometer caused less disturbance or pain to the newborn during temperature measurement. Similarly, Robertson-Smith et al [8] and Sethi et al [2] reported a poor agreement between mid-forehead and digital axillary thermometry readings amongst newborns in an intensive care unit thus concluding that both methods of thermometry could not be used interchangeably in the newborn. Sollai et al [1] and De Curtis et al [9] on the other hand, reported a good agreement between Infra-red and axillary digital thermometry; and Infra-red and rectal mercury-in-glass thermometry respectively, in newborns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temperature Measurements in Neonates: Assessing the Agreement of Two Methods

Olasinde¹,

Ernest²,

Popoola³

et al. 2020

OJPed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Neonatal temperature response during illness is unpredictable. Whereas accurate temperature measurement is an important diagnostic step in Neonatal practice. Abnormalties in temperature pattern may be a pointer to a sinister condition especially in neonates, whose thermoregulatory mechanism is immature. There are several methods of temperature measurements and the search for a suitable thermometry method in neonates continues. This study compared the forehead non touch infra-red thermometer (NTIT) with the axilllary mercury-in-glass (MIGT) method of temperature measurement in neonates. Method: Four hundred babies aged 1 to 28 days were recruited from the immunization clinic of the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital between August 2016 and May 2017. Temperatures were taken using both NTIT and MIGT in the standard way and recorded. Result: The mean age and SD was 5.10 ± 4.28 days. Pearson correlation showed a positive correlation between the Axillary Mercury-in-Glass and Forehead Non-Touch Infra-red thermometry readings (r = 0.426, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman method revealed a good agreement between both methods of thermometry as 95.5% of the readings were within the limits of agreement. Conclusion: Axillary Mercury-in-Glass thermometer and Forehead Non touch Infra-red thermometers have a good agreement and can be used interchangeably in neonates.

show abstract

“…bladder, esophageal, and rectal) indicated that the peripheral devices showed poor accuracy when used to estimate core BT and inadequate sensitivity when used for fever detection in adults and children 8,9,22 . However, using a different research methodology, other authors, comparing the peripheral electronic devices, achieved contradictory evidence [32][33][34][35] . For example, some studies found that FHD IR thermometers could serve as a good alternative to AXL DGT due to their user-friendliness and speed of use 36 , while others, reporting great mean differences between the investigated devices, did not consider the FHD IR device as accurate as the AXL DGT thermometer 24,34,35 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the interchangeability of infrared and digital devices with the traditional mercury thermometer in hospitalized pediatric patients: an observational study.

Dante

Gaxhja

Masotta

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A gradual replacement of the mercury thermometers with alternative devices is ongoing around the world as effect of the global strategies to reduce mercury pollution. However, to reduce the risks of misdiagnosis, unnecessary treatments, and omission of care in the pediatric population, more evidence on the reliability and validity of alternative thermometers are needed. The aim of this comparative observational study was to detect any differences in temperature measurements between the gold-standard axillary mercury thermometer (AXLMER) and the alternative devices. Temperature values in Celsius (°C) were simultaneously measured in a group of Albanian children aged up to 14 years using both (AXLMER) and digital axillary thermometers (AXLDGT), as well as forehead and tympanic infra-red thermometers. The AXLDGT device, compared with the AXLMER, showed no clinically significant difference in the mean values (-0.04 ± 0.29 °C) and the narrowest 95% Level of Agreement (+0.53 °C to -0.62 °C) in the paired comparisons. For cut-off points of 37.0 °C and 37.5 °C, the AXLDGT showed the highest levels of sensitivity (67.4% and 72.5%) and specificity (95.3% and 99.1%) in detecting fever. This study indicates that the AXLDGT thermometer may prove the better option since it adequately balances accuracy, safety and children’s comfort.

show abstract

A comparison of mid-forehead and axillary temperatures in newborn intensive care

Abstract: MFH thermometry is not able to replace DAT temperature recording in the newborn intensive care.

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

Digital Axillary and Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers for Children

Digital Axillary and Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers for Children

Temperature Measurements in Neonates: Assessing the Agreement of Two Methods

Evaluating the interchangeability of infrared and digital devices with the traditional mercury thermometer in hospitalized pediatric patients: an observational study.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About