The diagnostic accuracy of digital, infrared and mercury-in-glass thermometers in measuring body temperature: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

被引:21
作者
Pecoraro, Valentina [1 ]
Petri, Davide [2 ]
Costantino, Giorgio [3 ]
Squizzato, Alessandro [4 ]
Moja, Lorenzo [5 ]
Virgili, Gianni [6 ]
Lucenteforte, Ersilia [2 ]
机构
[1] AUSL Modena, Dept Lab Med & Pathol, Osped Civile St Agostino Estense, Modena, Italy
[2] Univ Pisa, Dept Clin & Expt Med, Via Roma 10, I-56126 Pisa, Italy
[3] Univ Milan, Osped Maggiore Policlin, IRCCS Fdn Ca Granda, UOC Pronto Soccorso & Med DUrgenza, Milan, Italy
[4] Univ Insubria, Dept Med & Surg, Como, Italy
[5] Univ Milan, Dept Biomed Sci Hlth, Milan, Italy
[6] AOU Careggi, Dept Neurosci Psychol Drug Res & Child Hlth NEURO, Florence, Italy
关键词
Body temperature; Diagnostic tests; Fever; Systematic review; Thermometers; TEMPORAL ARTERY THERMOMETRY; RECTAL THERMOMETRY; TYMPANIC MEMBRANE; EAR THERMOMETRY; CLINICAL ACCURACY; SKIN THERMOMETER; CHILDREN YOUNGER; AXILLARY; FEVER; RELIABILITY;
D O I
10.1007/s11739-020-02556-0
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Not much is known about how accurate and reproducible different thermometers are at diagnosing patients with suspected fever. The study aims at evaluating which peripheral thermometers are more accurate and reproducible. We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, WOS, CENTRAL, and Cinahl to perform: (1) diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis (MA) using rectal mercury-in-glass or digital thermometry as reference, and bivariate models for pooling; (2) network MA to estimate differences in mean temperature between devices; (3) Bland-Altman method to estimate 95% coefficient of reproducibility. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020174996. We included 46 studies enrolling more than 12,000 patients. Using 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F) as cut-off temperature, temporal infrared thermometry had a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.65, 0.84; low certainty) and specificity of 0.96 (0.92, 0.98; moderate certainty); tympanic infrared thermometry had a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.60, 0.88; low certainty) and specificity of 0.98 (0.95, 0.99; moderate certainty). For all the other index devices, it was not possible to pool the estimates. Compared to the rectal mercury-in-glass thermometer, mean temperature differences were not statistically different from zero for temporal or tympanic infrared thermometry; the median coefficient of reproducibility ranged between 0.53 degrees C [0.95 degrees F] for infrared temporal and 1.2 degrees C [2.16 degrees F] for axillary digital thermometry. Several peripheral thermometers proved specific, but not sensitive for diagnosing fever with rectal thermometry as a reference standard, meaning that finding a temperature below 38 degrees C does not rule out fever. Fixed differences between temperatures together with random error means facing differences between measurements in the order of 2 degrees C [4.5 degrees F]. This study informs practitioners of the limitations associated with different thermometers; peripheral ones are specific but not sensitive.
引用
收藏
页码:1071 / 1083
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The accuracy of pulse oximetry in measuring oxygen saturation by levels of skin pigmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Shi, Chunhu
    Goodall, Mark
    Dumville, Jo
    Hill, James
    Norman, Gill
    Hamer, Oliver
    Clegg, Andrew
    Watkins, Caroline Leigh
    Georgiou, George
    Hodkinson, Alexander
    Lightbody, Catherine Elizabeth
    Dark, Paul
    Cullum, Nicky
    BMC MEDICINE, 2022, 20 (01)
  • [42] Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings for midfacial fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rozema, Romke
    Doff, Michiel H. J.
    Delli, Konstantina
    Spijkervet, Frederik K. L.
    van Minnen, Baucke
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2022, 26 (04) : 3405 - 3427
  • [43] Diagnostic accuracy of serum biomarkers for head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Silva Guerra, Eliete Neves
    Rego, Daniela Fortunato
    Elias, Silvia Taveira
    Coletta, Ricardo D.
    Mendonca Mezzomo, Luis Andre
    Gozal, David
    Canto, Graziela De Luca
    CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY, 2016, 101 : 93 - 118
  • [44] Diagnostic Accuracy of Microbiome-Derived Biomarkers in Periodontitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Dong, Anbo
    Proctor, Gordon
    Zaric, Svetislav
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL RESEARCH, 2025,
  • [45] Diagnostic accuracy of the STRATIFY clinical prediction rule for falls: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Billington, Jennifer
    Fahey, Tom
    Galvin, Rose
    BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, 2012, 13
  • [46] Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yoshida, Takuo
    Yoshida, Takuya
    Noma, Hisashi
    Nomura, Takeshi
    Suzuki, Akihiro
    Mihara, Takahiro
    CRITICAL CARE, 2023, 27 (01)
  • [47] Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings for midfacial fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Romke Rozema
    Michiel H. J. Doff
    Konstantina Delli
    Frederik K. L. Spijkervet
    Baucke van Minnen
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2022, 26 : 3405 - 3427
  • [48] Diagnostic accuracy of ancillary tests for death by neurologic criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Briard, Joel Neves
    Nitulescu, Roy
    Lemoine, Emile
    Titova, Polina
    McIntyre, Lauralyn
    English, Shane W.
    Knoll, Greg
    Shemie, Sam D.
    Martin, Claudio
    Turgeon, Alexis F.
    Lauzier, Francois
    Fergusson, Dean A.
    Chasse, Michael
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 2023, 70 (04): : 736 - 748
  • [49] Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT in gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhange Yu
    Tianli Mao
    Yaping Xu
    Tengqi Li
    Yanhua Wang
    Fuqiang Gao
    Wei Sun
    Skeletal Radiology, 2018, 47 : 1587 - 1593
  • [50] Diagnostic test accuracy of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Jeong, Eunhye
    Park, Jinkyung
    Lee, Juneyoung
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2020, 76 (10) : 2510 - 2521