• F A Manian and S Griesenauer.
• Department of Infection Control, St John's Mercy Medical Center, St. Louis, MO 63141, USA.
• Am J Infect Control. 1998 Aug 1; 26 (4): 428-30.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare temperature measurements obtained by tympanic thermometers with those obtained by oral electronic or mercury-glass thermometers in adult hospitalized patients.MethodsA prospective study of 406 nonintensive care unit adult patients hospitalized during an 8-month period in a tertiary care community medical center.ResultsPoor agreement was observed between tympanic versus electronic thermometer reading, with 95% limits of agreement of -2.11 degrees F to +2.81 degrees F. Similarly, poor agreement was observed between tympanic versus oral mercury-glass temperatures, with 95% limits of agreement of -1.72 degrees F and +2.64 degrees F oral electronic temperatures 100 degrees F (37.7 degrees C) or higher, 10 (37%, 95% confidence interval 19% to 58%) readings were 99.5 degrees F (37.5 degrees C) or lower, and six (22%, 95% confidence interval 9% to 42%) measured lower than 98.6 degrees F by tympanic thermometers.ConclusionsTemperatures measured by tympanic thermometers generally have poor agreement with those measured by oral electronic or mercury-glass thermometers in adult hospitalized patients. We recommend the tympanic thermometers not by used for routine screening for fever in this patient population.

20 keywords...

hide…