Performance of non‐contact infrared thermometer for detecting febrile children in hospital and ambulatory settings

Elena Chiappini, Sara Sollai, Riccardo Longhi, Liana Morandini, Anna Laghi, Catia Emilia Osio, Mario Persiani, Silvia Lonati, Raffaella Picchi, Francesca Bonsignori, Francesco Mannelli, Luisa Galli and Maurizio de Martino

Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2011, vol. 20, issue 9‐10, 1311-1318

Abstract: Aims. To assess the performance of the non‐contact infrared thermometer compared with mercury‐in‐glass thermometer in children; to assess the diagnostic accuracy of non‐contact infrared thermometer for detecting children with fever; to compare the discomfort caused by the two procedures in children aged > one month. Background. Non‐contact infrared thermometer is a quick and non‐invasive method to measure body temperature, not requiring sterilisation or disposables. It is a candidate for temperature recording in children. Design. Prospective multicenter study. Methods. Body temperature readings were taken from every child consecutively admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Departments or Pediatric Clinics participating in the study. Two bilateral axillary temperature measurements using the mercury‐in‐glass thermometers and three mid‐forehead temperature measurements using the non‐contact infrared thermometer were performed. Results. Two hundred and fifty‐one children were enrolled in the study. Mean body temperature obtained by mercury‐in‐glass thermometer and non‐contact infrared thermometer was 37·18 (SD 0·96) °C and 37·30 (SD 0·92) °C, respectively (p = 0·153). Non‐contact infrared thermometer clinical repeatability was 0·108 (SD 0·095) °C, similar to that of the mercury‐in‐glass thermometer (0·11 SD 01 °C; p = 0·517). Bias was 0·0150 (SD 0·09) °C. The proportion of outliers >1 °C was 4/251 children (1·59%). A significant correlation between temperature values obtained with the two procedures was observed (r2 = 0·84; p 38·0 °C, for a non‐contact infrared thermometer temperature = 37·98 °C the sensitivity was 88·7% and the specificity 89·9%. Mean distress score (on a 5‐point scale) was significantly lower using the non‐contact infrared thermometer than using the mercury‐in‐glass thermometer (1·92 SD 0·56 and 2·40 SD0·93, respectively; p one month in hospital or ambulatory.

Date: 2011
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03565.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:9-10:p:1311-1318

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Clinical Nursing from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().