Suppr超能文献

四种皮肤温度监测设备的准确性和响应时间比较。

Accuracy and response time comparisons of four skin temperature-monitoring devices.

作者信息

Krause B F

出版信息

Nurse Anesth. 1993 Jun;4(2):55-61.

PMID:8347694
Abstract

Although technological improvements in skin surface temperature-measurement devices have progressed since they were first used clinically, the question of their accuracy and reliability for skin temperature monitoring still remains. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and response time to temperature change for four temperature-monitoring devices: liquid crystal (Crystaline ST, Sharn, Inc, Tampa, Fla), two different thermistor sensors (RSP, Respiratory Support Products, Inc, Irvine, Calif, and SHER-I-TEMP, Sheridan Catheter Corp, Argyle, NY), and one thermocouple-based temperature sensor (Mon-a-therm, Mallinckrodt, Inc, St. Louis, Mo). A temperature-controlled steel surface plate was used as the reference temperature source for test comparisons. The results showed that Crystaline ST (liquid crystal device) performed better in the accuracy and response time tests than the electronic thermistor and thermocouple temperature-sensor devices tested. Regression analysis of the reference temperature comparisons showed that although all four devices had high correlation coefficients Crystaline ST had the highest correlation (R = 0.99685). Also, the regression equation for Crystaline ST was closest to a perfect fit with reference temperatures, ie, slope = 1.00267 and intercept = 0.20333 (P = .0000). Crystaline ST responded consistently faster than the other devices for each change in temperature setting (5, 10, 15, and 20 degrees F). Crystaline ST responded within 3.5 to 4.4 seconds for every temperature gradient change tested. All three of the other sensor devices had increasingly longer response times as the temperature gradient increased.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

尽管自皮肤表面温度测量设备首次应用于临床以来,其技术已有所进步,但关于它们用于皮肤温度监测的准确性和可靠性问题依然存在。本研究的目的是比较四种温度监测设备在温度变化时的准确性和响应时间:液晶设备(Crystaline ST,Sharn公司,佛罗里达州坦帕市)、两种不同的热敏电阻传感器(RSP,呼吸支持产品公司,加利福尼亚州欧文市;以及SHER-I-TEMP,谢里丹导管公司,纽约州阿盖尔),还有一种基于热电偶的温度传感器(Mon-a-therm,马林克罗德公司,密苏里州圣路易斯市)。使用一个温度可控的钢制面板作为测试比较的参考温度源。结果显示,在准确性和响应时间测试中,Crystaline ST(液晶设备)比所测试的电子热敏电阻和热电偶温度传感器设备表现更好。参考温度比较的回归分析表明,尽管所有四种设备的相关系数都很高,但Crystaline ST的相关性最高(R = 0.99685)。此外,Crystaline ST的回归方程与参考温度最接近完美拟合,即斜率 = 1.00267,截距 = 0.20333(P = .0000)。对于每个温度设置变化(5、10、15和20华氏度),Crystaline ST的响应始终比其他设备更快。在测试的每个温度梯度变化中,Crystaline ST在3.5至4.4秒内做出响应。随着温度梯度增加,其他三种传感器设备的响应时间越来越长。(摘要截断于250字)

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