Nathan N, Guillaume A, Feiss P
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1995;14(4):336-9. doi: 10.1016/s0750-7658(05)80600-8.
To compare tympanic temperatures obtained with an infrared thermometer Core Check 2090A (IVAC), non in contact with the tympanic membrane, to values obtained with a thermocouple thermometer Mon-A-Therm (Mallinckrodt) in contact with it, and to assess whether the differences depend on the person measuring the temperature.
Prospective comparative open study.
The study included 150 adults in whom the tympanic temperatures were measured at their admission to recovery room by 10 nurse anaesthetists.
Each thermometer was inserted in the same patient into an external acoustic meatus. The median and range of the temperature differences were used to assess the bias and the accuracy of the measures. Their reliability was analyzed with consideration of the measuring person and the presence of irrelevant values, defined as a temperature difference over 0.3 degrees C.
The temperatures obtained with both devices were similar (36.2 +/- 0.7 degrees C with IVAC thermometer vs 36.2 +/- 0.8 degrees C with Mallinckrodt thermometer). The median value of the differences was 0 degrees C, with a range of 2.5 degrees C (maximum value + 1.5 degrees C, minimum value: -1 degree C). Nineteen patients could be qualified as hypothermic (temperature < 36.5 degrees C) with one thermometer and normothermic (temperature > or = 36.5 degrees C) with the other. Among them, only 9 (6%) had temperature differences above 0.3 degrees C. The temperature differences were not different according to the measuring nurse. Nevertheless two of them obtained major differences or irrelevant figures.
As compared to the thermocouple thermometry, infrared thermometry has no bias but a low precision. The measurement error does not allow the recognition of hypothermia in 6% of patients. The error may be made by the measuring person and/or related to the anatomy and the patency of the external acoustic meatus. Tympanic infrared thermometry seems to be a convenient method for temperature measurements at short time intervals in the recovery room, provided its limitations are kept in mind.
比较使用非接触鼓膜的红外体温计Core Check 2090A(IVAC)测得的鼓膜温度与使用接触鼓膜的热电偶温度计Mon - A - Therm(Mallinckrodt)测得的值,并评估差异是否取决于测量温度的人员。
前瞻性比较开放性研究。
该研究纳入了150名成年人,他们在进入恢复室时由10名护士麻醉师测量鼓膜温度。
将每个温度计插入同一患者的外耳道。温度差异的中位数和范围用于评估测量的偏差和准确性。考虑测量人员以及定义为温度差异超过0.3摄氏度的无关值的存在来分析其可靠性。
两种设备测得的温度相似(IVAC体温计为36.2±0.7摄氏度,Mallinckrodt体温计为36.2±0.8摄氏度)。差异的中位数为0摄氏度,范围为2.5摄氏度(最大值+1.5摄氏度,最小值:-1摄氏度)。19名患者使用一种温度计可判定为体温过低(体温<36.5摄氏度),而使用另一种温度计则为体温正常(体温≥36.5摄氏度)。其中,只有9名(6%)患者的温度差异超过0.3摄氏度。根据测量护士的不同,温度差异并无不同。然而,其中两名护士获得了较大差异或无关数据。
与热电偶测温法相比,红外测温法无偏差但精度较低。测量误差导致6%的患者无法被识别为体温过低。误差可能由测量人员造成和/或与外耳道的解剖结构及通畅情况有关。鼓膜红外测温法似乎是恢复室短时间间隔内测量温度的一种便捷方法,前提是要牢记其局限性。