Lee Kwo-Chen, Lin Yun-Ping, Tzeng Ya-Ling, Liao Wen-Chun, Lo Chyi, Chen Pei-Yun, Lu Shu-Hua
School of Nursing, China Medical University, 100, Sec. 1, Jingmao Rd, Taichung, 406040, Taiwan.
Department of Nursing, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
BMC Infect Dis. 2025 Jan 6;25(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12879-024-10332-0.
Non-invasive temporal artery thermometers (TATs) and non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are increasingly used in community settings to measure body temperature. Existing research predominantly focuses on pediatric populations, yet the accuracy and precision of TATs and NCITs for fever screening across age groups remain unclear. This study aims to assess age-related differences in the diagnostic accuracy of TATs and NCITs for fever detection.
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, sourcing data from PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and Web of Science. Prospective studies comparing TATs and NCITs against body temperature measurement methods were included. Two independent researchers extracted data, and study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and the hierarchical summary area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated using STATA version 17.
This meta-analysis included 34 studies with 28,996 participants, of whom 5,358 were febrile. For TATs, 22 studies with 9,894 readings yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.76) and specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96). Sensitivity was higher at fever thresholds > 38 °C (0.71, 95% CI: 0.60-0.80), and higher in children (0.77, 95% CI: 0.66-0.85) than in adults (0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.67). Similar sensitivities were observed between rectal and other standards (0.70, 95% CI: 0.59-0.80 vs. 0.70, 95% CI: 0.41-0.89). For NCITs, 16 studies with 14,234 readings yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.82) and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90-0.97). Sensitivity improved at fever thresholds > 38 °C (from 0.70 to 0.75, 95% CI: 0.55-0.88) and was higher in children compared to the overall estimate (0.79 vs. 0.70, 95% CI: 0.62-0.90). Comparable sensitivities were noted between axillary and other standards (0.73, 95% CI: 0.30-0.94 vs. 0.75, 95% CI: 0.49-0.90).
TATs and NCITs show variable diagnostic accuracy across age groups, with higher sensitivity in children and at elevated fever thresholds. This variability underscores the importance of age-specific use of these thermometers and highlights the need for further research to optimize diagnostic performance across populations.
无创颞动脉体温计(TATs)和非接触式红外体温计(NCITs)在社区环境中越来越多地用于测量体温。现有研究主要集中在儿科人群,但TATs和NCITs在各年龄组进行发热筛查的准确性和精确性仍不明确。本研究旨在评估TATs和NCITs在发热检测诊断准确性方面的年龄相关差异。
进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,从PubMed、MEDLINE、CINAHL、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、ProQuest和Web of Science获取数据。纳入了比较TATs和NCITs与体温测量方法的前瞻性研究。两名独立研究人员提取数据,并用QUADAS - 2工具评估研究质量。使用STATA 17版计算敏感性、特异性的合并估计值以及受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线下的分层汇总面积。
这项荟萃分析包括34项研究,共28996名参与者,其中5358名发热。对于TATs,22项研究共9894次读数,合并敏感性为0.59(95%CI:0.40 - 0.76),特异性为0.91(95%CI:0.83 - 0.96)。在发热阈值>38°C时敏感性更高(0.71,95%CI:0.60 - 0.80),儿童的敏感性(0.77,95%CI:0.66 - 0.85)高于成人(0.48,95%CI:0.30 - 0.67)。直肠和其他标准之间观察到相似的敏感性(0.70,95%CI:0.59 - 0.80对0.70,95%CI:0.41 - 0.89)。对于NCITs而言,16项研究共14234次读数,合并敏感性为0.70(95%CI:0.54 - 0.82),特异性为0.94(95%CI:0.90 - 0.97)。发热阈值>38°C时敏感性有所提高(从0.