Non-contact infrared thermometers for measuring temperature in children: primary care diagnostic technology update

Kay Wang; Peter Gill; Jane Wolstenholme; Christopher P Price; Carl Heneghan; Matthew Thompson; Annette Plüddemann

doi:10.3399/bjgp14X682045

BACKGROUND AND ADVANTAGES OVER EXISTING TECHNOLOGY

Temperature is an important vital sign for assessing acutely unwell children, and is measured frequently in primary care. However, measuring temperature accurately can be challenging. Oral and rectal thermometers are invasive and poorly tolerated, while axillary thermometers require parents or healthcare professionals to undress the child and hold the thermometer in the axilla for 30 seconds or longer. Infrared tympanic thermometers are easier to use, but can be inaccurate due to ear wax or insufficient straightening of the ear canal. Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are designed to measure temperature rapidly and non-invasively with negligible cross-infection risk. This update compares the accuracy and utility of NCITs with conventional thermometers in children.

Clinical Question

What is the accuracy and utility of non-contact infrared thermometers compared to conventional thermometers in children?

DETAILS OF TECHNOLOGY

Table 1 summarises characteristics of a range of NCITs. Based on a search conducted in December 2013, over 20 models are available for use in community and/or healthcare settings. The Thermofocus and Syner-Med VeraTemp thermometers are FDA approved and CE marked. This report found six studies comparing three NCIT devices (Standard ST 8812¹, Thermofocus 0800²,³ and Thermofocus 01500⁴–⁶) to conventional thermometers in children.

View this table:

Table 1.

Characteristics of non-contact infrared thermometers

PATIENT GROUP AND USE

NCITs may be used to measure temperature in children presenting with acute illness in primary or emergency care settings, or while being monitored at home during an illness episode.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Accuracy compared to existing technology

One study compared the Standard ST 8812 with infrared tympanic thermometry.¹ Based on 1000 pairs of readings from 567 hospitalised children, the mean difference was ±2.34°C. A Standard ST 8812 temperature cut-off point of 35.1°C detected fever (tympanic temperature >38°C) with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 75%.

One study compared the Thermofocus 0800 with mercury in-glass axillary thermometry (n = 251).² The Thermofocus 0800 detected fever with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 90%. Readings were strongly correlated with axillary temperatures (r² = 0.837, P<0.001). In another study, the Thermofocus 0800 detected fever with a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 79% compared to an electronic thermometer.³ A moderate correlation between temperature readings was observed (r = 0.66, P<0.001).

Two studies compared the Thermofocus 01500 with mercury in-glass⁴ or electronic⁵ rectal thermometers. One reported a strong correlation with rectal temperatures (r = 0.952, P<0.001).⁴ This study recruited 434 children from emergency room or inpatient settings and recorded three consecutive temperature readings with each thermometer. A Thermofocus 01500 temperature reading of ≥38°C detected fever (rectal temperature of ≥38°C) with sensitivity and specificity of 97%. A smaller study, which recruited 200 children from a tertiary paediatric emergency department, reported only moderate agreement with rectal temperature (r² = 0.48, P<0.01), but did not obtain multiple temperature readings.⁵ This study also found that the Thermofocus 01500 overestimated rectal temperature in patients with lower temperatures and underestimated temperature in patients with higher temperatures (r² = 0.149, P<0.01).

One study including 90 children (inpatients and outpatients), reported a weak correlation between temperatures measured using the Thermofocus 01500 and three different reference standards (tympanic, temporal artery and axillary thermometry; r² = 0.029, P<0.0001).⁶

Impact compared to existing technology

In a small number of studies NCITs were reliable at ruling out fever (negative predictive value 91–98%) but proved more reliable at ruling in fever when compared to mercury in-glass²,⁴ as opposed to electronic thermometer¹,³ fever thresholds. Performance may be improved by taking an average of repeated measurements, allowing sufficient time for children’s temperature to stabilise and taking temperature when children are not emotionally distressed.²–⁴ NCITs may be of particular value to parents, carers and healthcare professionals when measuring temperature in children while they are sleeping and in children who cannot tolerate other thermometers. In three studies, Thermofocus thermometers caused significantly less distress to children than mercury in-glass²,⁴ or electronic³ thermometers.

Cost effectiveness and economic impact

Currently no literature exists on the cost effectiveness or economic impact of using NCITs to measure temperature in children. Although some models of NCIT are considerably more expensive than conventional thermometers, NCIT use may bring long-term cost savings in terms of reduced staff time (quicker to obtain readings) and material costs (no disposable probe covers needed). Time required to obtain temperature readings has already been established as an important driver of total costs associated with using different types of thermometer.⁷

Relevant guidelines

The 2013 NICE guideline on feverish illness in children <5 years⁷ recommends that temperature should be measured using an electronic or chemical dot axillary thermometer or an infrared tympanic thermometer in children aged 4 weeks to 5 years. An electronic axillary thermometer should be used in infants <4 weeks old. The Canadian Paediatric Society⁸ recommends that definitive temperature should be measured using an electronic rectal thermometer and screening temperature using an electronic axillary thermometer in children aged ≤5 years. Tympanic thermometers may be used for screening temperatures in children aged >2 years. Neither guideline makes any recommendations about NCIT use.

What this technology adds

Early evidence suggests that NCITs may provide a rapid, hygienic, and non-invasive means of ruling out fever in children. Published data have so far demonstrated that NCITs have high sensitivity and specificity in detecting fever. However, these findings are mostly based on small studies conducted in hospital inpatient and emergency department settings. Further research is therefore needed to determine the accuracy and utility of NCITs in primary care. In particular, optimal fever thresholds need to be established in community versus hospital settings and procedures for obtaining reliable measurements need to be evaluated, taking into consideration the value of obtaining multiple readings and additional factors such as sweating, clothing, and changes in ambient temperature; for example due to external heaters, such as radiators. The cost effectiveness of using NCITs to screen for fever and measure temperature in children also needs to be determined.

Methodology

Standardised methodology was applied in writing this report, using prioritisation criteria and a comprehensive, standardised search strategy, and critical appraisal. (Further details of the methodology of Horizon scan reports are available from www.madox.org/horizon-scanning-report.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Nia Roberts for helpful discussions.

Notes

Funding

This work is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org.uk/letters

Received March 30, 2014.
Accepted April 3, 2014.

REFERENCES

1.↵
1. Ng DK,
2. Chan C-H,
3. Lee RS,
4. Leung LC
(2005) Non-contact infrared thermometry temperature measurement for screening fever in children. Ann Trop Pediatr 25:267–275.
OpenUrl PubMed
2.↵
1. Chiappini E,
2. Sollai S,
3. Longhi R,
4. et al.
(2011) Performance of non-contact infrared thermometer for detecting febrile children in hospital and ambulatory settings. J Clin Nurs 20:1311–1318.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
3.↵
1. Selent MU,
2. Molinari NM,
3. Baxter A,
4. et al.
(2013) Mass screening for fever in children. A comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems. Pediatr Emerg Care 29:305–313.
OpenUrl
4.↵
1. Teran CG,
2. Torrez-Llanos J,
3. Teran-Miranda TE,
4. et al.
(2011) Clinical accuracy of a non-contact infrared skin thermometer in paediatric practice. Child Care Health Dev 38:471–476.
OpenUrl
5.↵
1. Fortuna EL,
2. Carney MM,
3. Macy MM,
4. et al.
(2010) Accuracy of non-contact infrared thermometry versus rectal thermometry in young children evaluated in the emergency department for fever. J Emerg Nurs 36:101–114.
OpenUrl PubMed
6.↵
1. Osio CE,
2. Carnelli V
(2007) Comparative study of body temperature measured with a non-contact infrared thermometer versus conventional devices. The first Italian study on 90 pediatric patients. Minerva Pediatr 59:327–336.
OpenUrl PubMed
7.↵
1. National Institute for Care and Health Excellence
Feverish illness in children: Assessment and initial management in children younger than 5 years, NICE Guidelines (CG160). May 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG160 (accessed 16 Sep 2014).
8.↵
1. Leduc D,
2. Woods S,
3. Community Paediatrics Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society
, Position Statement (posted 01/01/2000, reaffirmed 30/01/2013): Temperature measurement in paediatrics. www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/temperature-measurement (accessed 15 Aug 2014).

In this issue

Download PDF

Email Article

Citation Tools

More in this TOC Section

Show more Clinical Intelligence

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

[1] 1.↵
Ng DK,
Chan C-H,
Lee RS,
Leung LC
(2005) Non-contact infrared thermometry temperature measurement for screening fever in children. Ann Trop Pediatr 25:267–275.
OpenUrl PubMed

[2] Ng DK,

[3] Chan C-H,

[4] Lee RS,

[5] Leung LC

[6] 2.↵
Chiappini E,
Sollai S,
Longhi R,
et al.
(2011) Performance of non-contact infrared thermometer for detecting febrile children in hospital and ambulatory settings. J Clin Nurs 20:1311–1318.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[7] Chiappini E,

[8] Sollai S,

[9] Longhi R,

[10] et al.

[11] 3.↵
Selent MU,
Molinari NM,
Baxter A,
et al.
(2013) Mass screening for fever in children. A comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems. Pediatr Emerg Care 29:305–313.
OpenUrl

[12] Selent MU,

[13] Molinari NM,

[14] Baxter A,

[15] et al.

[16] 4.↵
Teran CG,
Torrez-Llanos J,
Teran-Miranda TE,
et al.
(2011) Clinical accuracy of a non-contact infrared skin thermometer in paediatric practice. Child Care Health Dev 38:471–476.
OpenUrl

[17] Teran CG,

[18] Torrez-Llanos J,

[19] Teran-Miranda TE,

[20] et al.

[21] 5.↵
Fortuna EL,
Carney MM,
Macy MM,
et al.
(2010) Accuracy of non-contact infrared thermometry versus rectal thermometry in young children evaluated in the emergency department for fever. J Emerg Nurs 36:101–114.
OpenUrl PubMed

[22] Fortuna EL,

[23] Carney MM,

[24] Macy MM,

[25] et al.

[26] 6.↵
Osio CE,
Carnelli V
(2007) Comparative study of body temperature measured with a non-contact infrared thermometer versus conventional devices. The first Italian study on 90 pediatric patients. Minerva Pediatr 59:327–336.
OpenUrl PubMed

[27] Osio CE,

[28] Carnelli V

[29] 7.↵
National Institute for Care and Health Excellence
Feverish illness in children: Assessment and initial management in children younger than 5 years, NICE Guidelines (CG160). May 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG160 (accessed 16 Sep 2014).

[30] National Institute for Care and Health Excellence

[31] 8.↵
Leduc D,
Woods S,
Community Paediatrics Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society
, Position Statement (posted 01/01/2000, reaffirmed 30/01/2013): Temperature measurement in paediatrics. www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/temperature-measurement (accessed 15 Aug 2014).

[32] Leduc D,

[33] Woods S,

[34] Community Paediatrics Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society

Main menu

User menu

Search

Non-contact infrared thermometers for measuring temperature in children: primary care diagnostic technology update

BACKGROUND AND ADVANTAGES OVER EXISTING TECHNOLOGY

Clinical Question

DETAILS OF TECHNOLOGY

PATIENT GROUP AND USE

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Accuracy compared to existing technology

Impact compared to existing technology

Cost effectiveness and economic impact

Relevant guidelines

What this technology adds

Methodology

Acknowledgments

Notes

Funding

Provenance

Competing interests

Discuss this article

REFERENCES

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US

Main menu

User menu

Search

Non-contact infrared thermometers for measuring temperature in children: primary care diagnostic technology update

BACKGROUND AND ADVANTAGES OVER EXISTING TECHNOLOGY

Clinical Question

DETAILS OF TECHNOLOGY

PATIENT GROUP AND USE

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Accuracy compared to existing technology

Impact compared to existing technology

Cost effectiveness and economic impact

Relevant guidelines

What this technology adds

Methodology

Acknowledgments

Notes

Funding

Provenance

Competing interests

Discuss this article

REFERENCES

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US