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

被引:0
作者
Valentina Pecoraro
Davide Petri
Giorgio Costantino
Alessandro Squizzato
Lorenzo Moja
Gianni Virgili
Ersilia Lucenteforte
机构
[1] Ospedale Civile Sant’Agostino Estense,Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology
[2] AUSL Modena,Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
[3] University of Pisa,Department of Medicine and Surgery
[4] IRCCS Fondazione Ca’ Granda,Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health
[5] Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico,Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA)
[6] UOC Pronto Soccorso e Medicina D’Urgenza,undefined
[7] Università Degli Studi di Milano,undefined
[8] University of Insubria,undefined
[9] University of Milan,undefined
[10] AOU Careggi,undefined
来源
Internal and Emergency Medicine | 2021年 / 16卷
关键词
Body temperature; Diagnostic tests; Fever; Systematic review; Thermometers;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
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 °C (100.4 ℉) 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 °C [0.95 ℉] for infrared temporal and 1.2 °C [2.16 ℉] 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 °C does not rule out fever. Fixed differences between temperatures together with random error means facing differences between measurements in the order of 2 °C [4.5 ℉]. 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:12
相关论文
共 241 条
[1]  
Niven DJ(2015)Accuracy of peripheral thermometers for estimating temperature: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ann Intern Med 163 768-777
[2]  
Gaudet JE(2007)Guideline development group and the technical team. Assessment and initial management of feverish illness in children younger than 5 years: summary of NICE guidance BMJ 334 1163-1164
[3]  
Laupland KB(2017)Update of the Italian pediatric society guidelines for management of fever in children J Pediatr 180 177-183.e1
[4]  
Mrklas KJ(2018)Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement JAMA 319 388-396
[5]  
Roberts DJ(2001)Evaluation of clinical thermometers for accuracy and reliability Biomed Instrum Technol 35 259-265
[6]  
Stelfox HT(2006)Thermometry in paediatric practice Arch Dis Child 91 351-356
[7]  
Richardson M(2016)Temperature measurement in the adult emergency department: oral, tympanic membrane and temporal artery temperatures versus rectal temperature Emerg Med J 33 843-847
[8]  
Lakhanpaul M(1999)Measuring agreement in method comparison studies Stat Methods Med Res 8 135-160
[9]  
Chiappini E(2011)QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med 155 529-536
[10]  
Venturini E(2005)Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews J Clin Epidemiol 58 982-990