• Stephen G Holt, Jennifer H Yo, Connie Karschimkus, Frank Volpato, Steve Christov, Edward R Smith, Tim D Hewitson, Leon J Worth, and Paul Champion De Crespigny.
• Department of Nephrology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
• Intern Med J. 2020 Jun 1; 50 (6): 685-690.

BackgroundMeasuring temperature has always been a key observation in the diagnosis of infection. No studies have examined the usefulness of measuring temperature at the wrist to detect infection.AimWe sought to determine whether a watch measuring wrist temperature could accurately identify patients who are infected.MethodsProspective cross-sectional pilot study of temperature monitoring in an unselected patients in a tertiary referral adult nephrology unit.ResultsOne hundred and four data recording sessions revealed 88 useful data sets, with recording failures in the others. Patients were retrospectively classified as having no infection (Group A, n = 60), clinically diagnosed infection with less than 24 h of treatment with antibiotics (Group B, n = 5), and clinically diagnosed infection with greater than 24 h on antibiotics (Group C, n = 23). There was a significantly higher average maximum temperature in Group B (mean (SEM)) 38°C (0.6) compared with Groups A (36.1°C (0.1)) and C (36.3°C (0.3)). Based on receiver operating characteristics (ROC) a cut-off temperature of ≥37.5°C gave sensitivity 80% and specificity 98%. Mean electrodermal activity was significantly higher in Groups B and C.ConclusionsROC of peripheral skin temperature measurements suggest that such a device may identify many patients requiring treatment for infection. This proof of principle study showed value in using a wearable device in the detection of infection and its potential as an early warning or monitoring device.© 2020 The Authors. Internal Medicine Journal by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

14 keywords...

hide…