Suppr超能文献

非接触式红外体温计与腋下表、鼓膜体温计在儿保门诊中应用的准确性和可接受性的混合方法研究。

Non-contact infrared versus axillary and tympanic thermometers in children attending primary care: a mixed-methods study of accuracy and acceptability.

机构信息

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) postdoctoral fellow.

Academic Centre for Primary Care, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

出版信息

Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Mar 26;70(693):e236-e244. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X708845. Print 2020 Apr.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend measuring temperature in children presenting with fever using electronic axillary or tympanic thermometers. Non-contact thermometry offers advantages, yet has not been tested against recommended methods in primary care.

AIM

To compare two different non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) to axillary and tympanic thermometers in children aged ≤5 years visiting their GP with an acute illness.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Method comparison study with nested qualitative component.

METHOD

Temperature measurements were taken with electronic axillary (Welch Allyn SureTemp®), electronic tympanic (Braun Thermoscan®), NCIT Thermofocus® 0800, and NCIT Firhealth Forehead. Parents rated acceptability and discomfort. Qualitative interviews explored parents' experiences of the thermometers.

RESULTS

In total, 401 children were recruited (median age 1.6 years, 50.62% male). Mean difference between the Thermofocus NCIT and axillary thermometer was -0.14°C (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.21 to -0.06°C); lower limit of agreement was -1.57°C (95% CI = -1.69 to -1.44°C) and upper limit 1.29°C (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.42°C). A second NCIT (Firhealth) had similar levels of agreement; however, the limits of agreement between tympanic and axillary thermometers were also wide. Parents expressed a preference for the practicality and comfort of NCITs, and were mostly negative about their child's experience of axillary thermometers. But there was willingness to adopt whichever device was medically recommended.

CONCLUSION

In a primary care paediatric population, temperature measurements with NCITs varied by >1°C compared with axillary and tympanic approaches. But there was also poor agreement between tympanic and axillary thermometers. Since clinical guidelines often rely on specific fever thresholds, clinicians should interpret peripheral thermometer readings with caution and in the context of a holistic assessment of the child.

摘要

背景

指南建议使用电子腋下或鼓膜温度计测量发热儿童的体温。非接触式测温具有优势,但尚未在初级保健中经过与推荐方法的对比测试。

目的

比较两种不同的非接触式红外体温计(NCIT)与腋下表和鼓膜温度计在因急性疾病就诊的≤5 岁儿童中的应用。

设计和设置

与嵌套定性部分的方法比较研究。

方法

使用电子腋下表(Welch Allyn SureTemp®)、电子鼓膜温度计(Braun Thermoscan®)、NCIT Thermofocus®0800 和 NCIT Firhealth Forehead 测量体温。父母评估可接受性和不适程度。定性访谈探讨了父母对温度计的体验。

结果

共纳入 401 名儿童(中位年龄 1.6 岁,50.62%为男性)。Thermofocus NCIT 与腋下表之间的平均差值为-0.14°C(95%置信区间 [CI] = -0.21 至-0.06°C);一致性下限为-1.57°C(95% CI = -1.69 至-1.44°C),上限为 1.29°C(95% CI = 1.16 至 1.42°C)。第二种 NCIT(Firhealth)具有相似的一致性水平;然而,鼓膜温度计与腋下表之间的一致性范围也很宽。父母表示更喜欢 NCIT 的实用性和舒适性,对腋下表的体验大多持否定态度。但他们愿意采用任何医学推荐的设备。

结论

在初级保健儿科人群中,与腋下表和鼓膜方法相比,NCIT 的体温测量值差异超过 1°C。但鼓膜温度计和腋下表之间的一致性也很差。由于临床指南通常依赖于特定的发热阈值,临床医生应谨慎解读外周温度计读数,并结合对儿童的整体评估。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

8
Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers.临床评估非接触式红外体温计。
Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 11;11(1):22079. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99300-1.

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验