Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33237494›Full record

SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2021

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

Valentina Pecoraro, Davide Petri, Giorgio Costantino, Alessandro Squizzato, Lorenzo Moja, Gianni Virgili, Ersilia Lucenteforte

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Internal and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bridging the Gap in Pain Measurement with a Brain-Based Index.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Valentina PecoraroDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Ospedale Civile Sant'Agostino Estense, AUSL Modena, Modena, Italy.
Davide PetriDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Roma, 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Giorgio CostantinoIRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, UOC Pronto Soccorso e Medicina D'Urgenza, Università Degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro SquizzatoDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria, Como, Italy.
Lorenzo MojaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Gianni VirgiliDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA), AOU Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Ersilia LucenteforteDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Roma, 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy. ersilia.lucenteforte@unipi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5608-5902
University of Pisa · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITAzienda Unita' Sanitaria Locale Di Modena · ITFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITUniversity of Insubria · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

Fondazione Cassa si Risparmio di Firenze 24383
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Body TemperatureDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEquipment DesignHumansReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityThermometersBody temperatureDiagnostic testsFeverSystematic reviewThermometers

Identifiers

PMID33237494
PMCPMC7686821
OpenAlexW3107110570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.