DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20172689

Diagnostic accuracy of digital thermometer compared to mercury in glass thermometer for measuring temperature in children

Venkatesh Periasami, Sridevi A. Naaraayan, Seetha vishwanathan

Abstract


Background: A wide variety of devices are available to record temperature from skin, oral or rectal mucosa and the tympanic membrane. The accuracy of different devices is varied and the primary objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of digital thermometer against mercury in glass thermometer in children. The secondary objective was to determine the average time taken by the digital thermometer to record the temperature.

Methods: This descriptive study was conducted in a pediatric ward at Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children, Egmore, Chennai. In all 92 febrile children aged 1 month to 12 years admitted in the ward, temperature was measured at the time of admission using both digital and mercury in glass thermometers placed in each axilla after obtaining informed consent. Concordance and discordance of both measurements were determined using Pearson Correlation coefficient and Bland altman plot. Average time taken by digital thermometer to record temperature was noted.

Results: There was a good correlation between mercury and digital thermometer recordings (r=0.976, p<0.001). The Bland-Altman test showed that almost all residual values (estimated-observed) are random and the fall within the 95% confidence interval. The average time taken by the digital thermometer to record the temperature was 88.03 seconds (95% CI-54.58 to 121.49).

Conclusions: Digital thermometer is as accurate as mercury in glass thermometer in recording temperature. The average time taken by the digital thermometer to record temperature is 88.03 ±17.07 seconds. 


Keywords


Digital thermometer, Mercury in glass thermometer, Temperature measurement

Full Text:

PDF

References


Patrick C. Drayana and Marc H. Gorelick. Evaluation of the sick child in the office and Clinic. In: Robert M. Kliegman, eds. Nelson textbook of Pediatrics. 20th ed. Philadelphia:Elsevier; 2016;11:474-7.

Leduc D, Woods S. Position Statement. Temperature measurement in paediatrics. Available at www.cps.ca/en © Canadian Paediatric Society 2017.

Chris W. Thermometers. Available at www.explainthestuff.com. Accessed 9 April 2017.

Fadzil FM, Choon D, Arumugam K. A comparative study on the accuracy of noninvasive thermometers. Australian family physician. 2010;39(4):237-9.

Jensen BN, Jensen FS, Madsen SN, Løssl K. Accuracy of digital tympanic, oral, axillary, and rectal thermometers compared with standard rectal mercury thermometer. Eur J Surg. 2000;166(11):848-515.

Shanks. Comparison of accuracy of digital and standard mercury thermometers. British Med J. 1983;287:1263.

Kongpanichkul A, Bunjongpak S. A comparative study on accuracy of liquid crystal forehead, digital electronic axillary, infrared tympanic with glass-mercury rectal thermometer in infants and young children. J Med Association Thai. 2000;83(9):68-76.

Roy AS, Chowdhury T, Bandhopadhya D, Ghosh G. Time required to document temperature by electronic skin thermometer in a healthy neonate. Indian Pediatr. 2009;46(12):1103-4.

Students’ Handbook for IMNCI, WHO and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India. 2003:24.

Fahrenheit to Celsius formula. Available at © 2017 RapidTables.com. Accessed on April 9 2017.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-10.

Market study on alternative of mercury measuring devices in health in India-A status report on India. WHO.2010:28-34. Available at http://www.zeromercury.org/phocadownload/Projects_/India/Market_Study_edited16_2_2010.pdf.