AbstractWe compared the accuracy and utility of 3 infrared (IFR) thermographs fitted with axillary digital thermometers used to measure temperature in febrile and afebrile children admitted to an emergency triage room.A total of 184 febrile and 135 afebrile children presenting to a triage room were consecutively evaluated. Axillary temperature was recorded using a digital electronic thermometer. Simultaneously, IFR skin scans were performed on the forehead, the neck (over the carotid artery), and the nape by the same nurse. Fever was defined as an axillary temperature ≥37.5°C. The temperature readings at the 4 sites were compared.For all subjects, the median axillary temperature was 37.7 ± 1.5°C, the IFR forehead temperature was 37 ± 1.1°C, the IFR neck temperature was 37.6 ± 1.5°C, and the IFR nape temperature was 37 ± 1.2°C. A Bland–Altman plot of the differences suggested that all agreements between IFR and axillary measures were poor (the latter measure was considered the standard). The forehead measurements had a sensitivity of 88.6% and a specificity of 60% in patients with temperatures ≥36.75°C. The sensitivities of the neck measurement at cut-offs of ≥37.35°C and ≥36.95 were 95.5% and 78.8% for those aged 2 to 6 years. Thus, 11.4% of febrile subjects were missed when forehead measurements were performed.An IFR scan over the lateral side of neck is a reliable, comfortable, rapid, and noninvasive method for fever screening, particularly in children aged 2 to 6 years, in busy settings such as pediatric triage rooms.
Medicine – Wolters Kluwer Health
Published: Feb 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud