ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2025
Evaluation of non-invasive sensors for monitoring core temperature.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the accuracy and precision of zero-heat flux (ZHF) and dual sensor (DS) non-invasive temperature probes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing hypothermic temperature control, hypothesizing that both devices would accurately estimate core temperature. In a single-center prospective cohort study, we enrolled 35 ICU patients and applied continuous, non-invasive ZHF and/or DS probes to the lateral forehead or anterior chest to collect 358 observations. Conditions potentially influencing temperature estimation were recorded. Using Bland-Altman analysis with multiple paired observations per individual, we compared the bias between non-invasive probes and direct core temperature measurements. Lin's concordance coefficient (LCC) was computed to quantify precision. The mean bias between the ZHF probe and invasive temperature was + 0.98 °C; for the DS probe, it was - 2.19 °C. In hypothermic patients, the ZHF probe's accuracy improved (bias + 0.28 °C, LCC 0.86), while the DS probe remained inaccurate (bias - 2.52 °C, LCC 0.07). Clinical confounders like vasoactive agents or temperature control devices did not consistently affect bias, accuracy, or precision. Neither the ZHF nor DS non-invasive probes provided sufficient accuracy or precision to guide clinical decisions in the ICU. These results contrast with previous studies reporting biases within ± 0.5 °C. However, the ZHF probe showed promising limited deviation, especially in hypothermic patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40120013What 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.