ClinStat Consulting LLC, 2492 Manchester Ave., Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007, USA.
J Clin Nurs. 2013 Sep;22(17-18):2509-18. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12060. Epub 2013 Feb 7.
This study compared readings from two professional-grade, commercially available infrared (IR) thermometers, the ThermoScan® PRO 4000 prewarmed tip ear thermometer and the Temporal Scanner(™) TAT-5000 temporal artery thermometer.
The repeatability and precision of readings from IR thermometers for professional use were questioned in the past, but in recent years, these types of thermometers have been technologically improved, so their ability to replicate standard temperature readings reliably should be re-examined.
Febrile and afebrile children were recruited from the emergency department, overflow treatment areas and the paediatric intensive care unit of a large hospital in Argentina. Each child had a randomised sequence of seven temperature readings, including three from the ear, three from the forehead or behind the ear and one reference oral or rectal reading.
Temperature readings were taken with the ThermoScan PRO 4000, the Temporal Scanner TAT-5000 and the monitor mode of SureTemp® Plus, a widely used professional-grade contact thermometer, for reference.
Of 205 children, 46% were febrile, per reference thermometer readings. While mean ThermoScan PRO 4000 febrile measurements did not differ significantly from reference, mean Temporal Scanner TAT-5000 febrile measurements were significantly lower (by a mean of 0·42 °C) than the reference. Overall bias of the ThermoScan PRO 4000 was significantly lower than that of the Temporal Scanner TAT-5000; repeatability was 1·5 times higher, and overall false-negative rate was about a third that of Temporal Scanner TAT-5000, when compared to the reference.
This study indicates that the ThermoScan PRO 4000 provides measurements closer to those of a professional-grade contact thermometer when compared to the Temporal Scanner TAT-5000.
The odds of misclassifying a febrile child as non-febrile were about threefold higher with the Temporal Scanner TAT-5000 temporal artery thermometer than with the ThermoScan® PRO 4000 ear thermometer.
本研究比较了两种专业级、市售的红外（IR）体温计——ThermoScan® PRO 4000 预加热探头耳温计和 Temporal Scanner(™) TAT-5000 颞动脉温度计——的读数。
过去曾质疑过专业用 IR 体温计的读数重复性和精度，但近年来，这些类型的体温计在技术上得到了改进，因此应该重新检查它们可靠复制标准温度读数的能力。
从阿根廷一家大医院的急诊室、溢出治疗区和儿科重症监护病房招募发热和不发热的儿童。每个孩子都有一个随机的七次温度读数序列，包括三次耳温、三次额温或耳后温度和一次参考口腔或直肠读数。
使用 ThermoScan PRO 4000、Temporal Scanner TAT-5000 和广泛使用的专业级接触式体温计 SureTemp® Plus 的监护模式进行温度读数，作为参考。
根据参考体温计读数，205 名儿童中有 46%发热。虽然 ThermoScan PRO 4000 的平均发热测量值与参考值无显著差异，但 Temporal Scanner TAT-5000 的平均发热测量值明显较低（平均低 0.42°C）。ThermoScan PRO 4000 的总体偏差明显低于 Temporal Scanner TAT-5000；重复性高 1.5 倍，与 Temporal Scanner TAT-5000 相比，总体假阴性率约为其三分之一。
与 Temporal Scanner TAT-5000 相比，本研究表明 ThermoScan PRO 4000 提供的测量值更接近专业级接触式体温计的测量值。
使用 Temporal Scanner TAT-5000 颞动脉温度计将发热儿童误诊为非发热儿童的几率比使用 ThermoScan® PRO 4000 耳温计高约三倍。
Zotero 插件