Evidence summary: Is there any evidence to suggest that one form of temperature checking is more reliable than another - eg is infra-red thermography more accurate than oral or aural measurements for the purposes of screening? [v1.0]
| dc.contributor.author | National Health Library & Knowledge Service (NHLKS) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ryan, Pauline | |
| dc.contributor.author | Leen, Brendan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Cole, Natalie | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-06-22T11:12:16Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-06-22T11:12:16Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020-05-26 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10147/627806 | |
| dc.description | Mordiffi et al point out that accurate measurement of body temperature is integral to the identification of many illnesses and the provision of safe and efficient patient care. Currently in practice, a diverse range of thermometers and a number of different routes are used by clinicians for the measurement of patients' body temperature. Each of these variables are known to be potentially influential upon the accuracy of body temperature estimation. The authors note that there is currently no gold standard thermometer type, manufacturer or route; that published and unpublished studies do not use a standard reference in comparison studies of the accuracy of thermometers; and that there is currently an absence of clarity around what constitutes a ‘hospital grade’ thermometer. How thermometers are compared and accuracy measured also appears to be inconsistently reported across studies, including previous systematic reviews. With the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus, temperature measurement is being used widely to screen people for the illness and the accuracy of body temperature measurement is crucial 3. In the last decade, many advances have been made in the field of automatic temperature estimation, infrared thermography (IRT), and non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) 2. NCITs estimate temperature at a reference body site, usually oral, based on measurements of a single region of skin: eg forehead; on the other hand, IRTs provide a 2D temperature distribution, typically of the face, thus enabling a wider range of options for body temperature estimation. Although NCITs currently represent the primary tool for fever screening during epidemics their accuracy has been called into question, particularly relative to IRTs. NCIT error may be due to a range of factors including the common use of forehead measurement locations, which are subject to fluctuations due to environmental factors such as ambient temperature and air flow 4 22 In a pre-print clinical study which has not yet been peer-reviewed, Zhou et al 2 point out that IRTs have been used for fever screening during infectious disease epidemics, including SARS, EVD and COVID-19. Although IRTs have significant potential for human body temperature measurement, the literature indicates inconsistent diagnostic performance, possibly due to wide variations in implemented methodology. A standardized method for IRT fever screening was recently published, but there is a lack of clinical data demonstrating its impact on IRT performance 2 Zhou et al evaluated the use of IRTs under standardized conditions and collected a wide range of data on facial temperatures and their correlation to oral measurements. Temperatures from several facial areas - including the forehead, canthi, mouth and entire face were compared to assess impact on fever screening. The authors claim that full face maximum temperatures provided the best performance followed closely by a wider inner canthi region. We await peer-review of the study. The literature still has polarizing views, therefore, on a diverse range of thermometers and a number of different routes used for the measurement of patients' body temperature. Ryan-Wenger et al 21 report that tympanic, temporal, axillary chemical and axillary electronic thermometer devices should not be used; only oral and rectal electronic thermometers. Chen et al 7 suggest that wrist temperature is more stable than forehead and that to date there is still uncertainty with regard to the suitability of the tympanic membrane as a core body temperature site. Ng et al 8 also point out that it is important to understand that skin temperature does not solely depend on body-core temperature and may be affected by other physiological and environmental factors and that commercially available handheld infra-red thermometers require individual validation. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Health Service Executive | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Evidence summaries | en_US |
| dc.subject | CORONAVIRUS | en_US |
| dc.subject | COVID-19 | en_US |
| dc.subject | TEMPERATURE | en_US |
| dc.subject | THERMOGRAPHY | en_US |
| dc.subject | DIAGNOSIS | en_US |
| dc.title | Evidence summary: Is there any evidence to suggest that one form of temperature checking is more reliable than another - eg is infra-red thermography more accurate than oral or aural measurements for the purposes of screening? [v1.0] | en_US |
| dc.type | Other | en_US |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2020-06-22T11:12:17Z |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
-
HSE Library Summaries of Evidence
Evidence summaries and reviews on the management and treatment of Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 and other clinical topics