Khorshid Leyla, Eşer Ismet, Zaybak Ayten, Yapucu Ulkü
Ege University School of Nursing, Izmir, Turkey.
J Clin Nurs. 2005 Apr;14(4):496-500. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.01076.x.
The aim of this study was to determine whether a disposable thermometer was at least as accurate as a tympanic thermometer when compared with a mercury-in-glass thermometer and to investigate the waiting periods of mercury-in-glass thermometers.
Although different methods of temperature measurement have been widely studied and described during the last decade, comparison between readings obtained when measuring body temperature using disposable, mercury-in-glass and tympanic thermometers is little documented and there is confusion about the waiting periods of mercury-in-glass thermometers.
This research was descriptive and comparative. Temperature measurements included three sequential readings using first a tympanic thermometer in the left ear, then a disposable thermometer in the left axillary area and finally a mercury-in-glass thermometer in the right axillary area. All the temperatures were measured on the Celsius (degrees C) scale. To identify the stabilization periods of the mercury-in-glass thermometers, the temperature measurement was repeated until the reading stabilized. F-tests were used to compare readings of the mean temperatures.
It was found that body temperature readings measured by tympanic thermometer were higher than axillary mercury-in-glass thermometer by 0.12 degrees C, body temperature readings measured by tympanic thermometer were higher than axillary disposable thermometer readings by 0.65 degrees C and body temperature readings measured by axillary mercury-in-glass thermometer were higher by 0.53 degrees C than readings measured by axillary disposable thermometer. It was found that readings measured by mercury-in-glass thermometer stabilized in the eighth minute.
When assessing body temperature it is important to take the type of thermometer into consideration. In addition, axillary mercury-in-glass thermometers must be kept in place a minimum of eight minutes.
本研究的目的是确定与玻璃体温计相比,一次性体温计的准确性是否至少与鼓膜体温计相同,并研究玻璃体温计的等待时间。
尽管在过去十年中对不同的体温测量方法进行了广泛研究和描述,但关于使用一次性体温计、玻璃体温计和鼓膜体温计测量体温时所获读数之间的比较记录较少,且对于玻璃体温计的等待时间存在混淆。
本研究为描述性和比较性研究。体温测量包括三个连续读数,首先使用左耳鼓膜体温计,然后使用左腋窝一次性体温计,最后使用右腋窝玻璃体温计。所有体温均以摄氏度(℃)为单位测量。为确定玻璃体温计的稳定期,重复进行体温测量直至读数稳定。使用F检验比较平均体温读数。
发现鼓膜体温计测量的体温读数比腋窝玻璃体温计高0.12℃,鼓膜体温计测量的体温读数比腋窝一次性体温计读数高0.65℃,腋窝玻璃体温计测量的体温读数比腋窝一次性体温计测量的读数高0.53℃。发现玻璃体温计测量的读数在第八分钟稳定。
在评估体温时,考虑体温计类型很重要。此外,腋窝玻璃体温计必须至少放置八分钟。