Scholefield J M, Gerber M A, Dwyer P
Am J Dis Child. 1982 Mar;136(3):198-201. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1982.03970390012002.
We recently compared two brands of liquid crystal temperature strips, designed for application to the forehead, Clinitemp and Fever Scan, with recently calibrated rectal and oral glass thermometers in 134 children. The Clinitemp identified as febrile nine (28%) of 33 children who had fever verified by a glass thermometer. Five of seven children less than 2 years of age with rectal temperatures of 38.9 degree C or higher were identified as afebrile by the Clinitemp. The Fever Scan identified as febrile 26 (79%) of 33 children who had fever verified by a glass thermometer. One of six children less than 2 years of age with rectal temperatures of 38.9 degree C or higher was identified as afebrile by the Fever Scan. Parents who rely on these strips to identify a fever in their children may be misled by an erroneous afebrile reading.
我们最近在134名儿童中，将两种专为额头使用设计的液晶体温条（Clinitemp和Fever Scan）与最近校准过的直肠和口腔玻璃体温计进行了比较。在33名经玻璃体温计证实发热的儿童中，Clinitemp将其中9名（28%）判定为发热。7名直肠温度达到或高于38.9摄氏度的2岁以下儿童中，有5名被Clinitemp判定为无发热。在33名经玻璃体温计证实发热的儿童中，Fever Scan将其中26名（79%）判定为发热。6名直肠温度达到或高于38.9摄氏度的2岁以下儿童中，有1名被Fever Scan判定为无发热。依靠这些体温条来判断孩子是否发热的家长，可能会因错误的无发热读数而被误导。
