Nursing Department, Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece, Patras, Greece.
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Patras University Hospital, Patras, Greece.
J Pediatr Nurs. 2019 May-Jun;46:89-99. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2019.03.004. Epub 2019 Mar 10.
Non-invasive thermometry methods have been used as substitutes for intra-corporeal ones in order to decrease patient discomfort and risk for complications, yet the evaluation of their performance is necessary. Our aim was to synthesize the evidence on the accuracy and precision of temporal artery (TA) thermometry, as well as on its sensitivity and specificity for fever detection.
This systematic review and meta-analysis included method-comparison studies, which compared TA temperature measurements with invasive thermometry ones, were published between 2000 and 2018, and were conducted on patients aged <18 years.
Thirty articles were selected for inclusion in the final analysis after screening those identified by searches in CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Scopus.
Quantitative synthesis indicated that pooled mean TA temperature was lower than core temperature by 0.01 °C (95% limits of agreement, -0.06 °C to 0.03 °C). Average summary sensitivity and specificity for fever detection were 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.79) and 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.93) respectively. Subgroup analysis indicated a trend toward larger temperature underestimation in febrile patients and in ages ≤4 years.
Despite its satisfactory accuracy, precision and specificity, TA thermometry has low sensitivity when used in pediatric patients, which does not allow satisfactory fever detection.
TA thermometry cannot be recommended for replacing rectal temperature measurement methods in children, due to its high proportion of false negative readings during screening for fever.
为了减少患者的不适和并发症风险,已经使用非侵入性测温方法来替代体内测温方法,但评估其性能是必要的。我们的目的是综合评估颞动脉(TA)测温的准确性和精密度,以及其对发热检测的敏感性和特异性。
本系统评价和荟萃分析包括方法比较研究,这些研究比较了 TA 温度测量与侵入性测温,发表时间在 2000 年至 2018 年之间,并且在年龄<18 岁的患者中进行。
通过在 CINAHL、PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE 和 Scopus 中搜索,筛选出 30 篇文章进行最终分析。
定量综合表明,平均 TA 温度比核心温度低 0.01°C(95%置信区间,-0.06°C 至 0.03°C)。发热检测的平均汇总敏感性和特异性分别为 0.72(95%置信区间,0.66-0.79)和 0.91(95%置信区间,0.86-0.93)。亚组分析表明,在发热患者和年龄≤4 岁的患者中,体温低估的趋势更大。
尽管 TA 测温具有令人满意的准确性、精密度和特异性,但在儿科患者中,其敏感性较低,无法满足发热检测的要求。
由于 TA 测温在筛查发热时假阴性读数比例较高,因此不能推荐用于替代直肠测温方法在儿童中的应用。