Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2019
Performance of axillary and rectal temperature measurement in private pediatric practice.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Accuracy of the Axillary Temperature Screening Compared to Core Rectal Temperature in Infants.Global pediatric health · 2022Article
- Evaluating the interchangeability of infrared and digital devices with the traditional mercury thermometer in hospitalized pediatric patients: an observational study.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To better understand the role and reliability of axillary temperature measurements in clinical real life, axillary and rectal measurements in infants presenting in a private pediatric practice because of fever were compared. Prospectively, 169 infants (81 girls), median 9 (interquartile range 6-13) months of age, were examined at room temperature (20-24 °C). Two left and two right axillary, as well as two rectal measurements were taken with a digital thermometer and subsequently averaged. The median and interquartile range for axillary and rectal measurements were 36.9 (36.3-37.6) °C and 38.2 (37.4-38.9) °C, respectively (p < 0.0001). The limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman plots were 0.32 to 1.98 °C, with a mean bias of 1.15 °C. Axillary thermometers showed a good sensitivity for detecting rectal temperature > 38 °C (95%) but limited specificity (75%), with an area-under-the-curve of 0.95.Conclusions: Axillary readings are always lower than rectal ones, the limits of agreement are quite wide. Axillary readings can be used for screening but critical measurements should be confirmed by more reliable methods. What is Known • In infants and toddlers, temperature has been traditionally taken rectally. • Axillary measurements are better accepted and are recommended in current guidelines. What is New • Axillary temperature was always lower than rectal temperature. • The limits of agreement of axillary thermometers are wide. • Axillary thermometers have a good sensitivity but limited specificity and are therefore adequate for fever screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31396691What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.