• Riana R Pryor, Jennifer R Seitz, Julia Morley, Joe Suyama, Francis X Guyette, Steven E Reis, and David Hostler.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Emergency Responder Human Performance Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh, 3600 Forbes Avenue, Suite 400A, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
• Prehosp Emerg Care. 2012 Jan 1;16(1):136-41.

BackgroundTemperature measurement is important for emergency medical services (EMS) providers when identifying and treating heat illness or infection. Direct measures of body core temperature (T(c)) are often expensive (ingestible capsules) or impractical (rectal probes) in the field. Multiple devices for estimating T(c) have been adopted by EMS providers, with little understanding of the agreement between these devices and T(c).ObjectiveTo examine the agreement between the results of five external thermometers and T(c) after subjects experienced physical exertion while wearing protective clothing.MethodsFifty firefighters completed treadmill walking in thermal protective clothing in a hot environment. Measurements of core, temporal, tympanic, forehead, and skin temperatures were obtained during a 20-minute recovery period simulating emergency incident rehabilitation.ResultsThe mean bias of external thermometers ranged from -1.31°C to -3.28°C when compared with T(c) and exceeded the predetermined clinical cutoff of ±0.5°C from T(c). The 95% limits of agreement ranged from 2.75°C to 5.00°C.ConclusionsExternal measuring devices failed to accurately predict T(c) in hyperthermic individuals following exertion. Confidence intervals around the bias were too large to allow for reasonable estimation of T(c). EMS providers should exercise caution when using any of these temperature estimation techniques.

21 keywords...

hide…