Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2024
Agreement between three noninvasive temperature monitoring devices during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypothermia during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is a common and important problem, yet temperature monitoring is often not performed due to the lack of a suitable, cost-effective monitor. This study aimed to compare a noninvasive core temperature monitor with two readily available peripheral temperature monitors during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. We undertook a prospective observational study including elective and emergency caesarean deliveries, to determine the agreement between affordable reusable surface temperature monitors (Welch Allyn SureTemp® Plus oral thermometer and the Braun 3-in-1 No Touch infrared thermometer) and the Dräger T-core© (using dual-sensor heat flux technology), in detecting thermoregulatory changes during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. Predetermined clinically relevant limits of agreement (LOA) were set at ± 0.5 °C. We included 166 patients in our analysis. Hypothermia (heat flux temperature < 36 °C) occurred in 67% (95% CI 49 to 78%). There was poor agreement between devices. In the Bland-Altman analysis, LOA for the heat flux monitor vs. oral thermometer were 1.8 °C (CI 1.7 to 2.0 °C; bias 0.5 °C), for heat flux monitor vs. infrared thermometer LOA were 2.3 °C (CI 2.1 to 2.4 °C; bias 0.4 °C) and for infrared vs. oral thermometer, LOA were 2.0 °C (CI 1.9 to 2.2 °C; bias 0.1 °C). Error grid analysis highlighted a large amount of clinical disagreement between methods. While monitoring of core temperature during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is clinically important, agreement between monitors was below clinically acceptable limits. Future research with gold-standard temperature monitors and exploration of causes of sensor divergence is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.