The pacifier thermometer. Comparison of supralingual with rectal temperatures in infants and young children

Temperature Monitoring Devices in Neonates

Introduction: Accurate temperature monitoring of neonates is vital due to the significant morbidities and mortality associated with neonatal hypothermia. Many studies have compared different thermometers in neonates, however, there is a lack of consensus regarding which of the currently available thermometers is most suitable for use in neonates. Objectives: The aim of this review was to identify and compare current methods available for temperature monitoring of neonates beyond the delivery room, including the accuracy, advantages and disadvantages of each. Methods: A recent search and narrative synthesis of relevant studies published between January 1, 1949 and May 5, 2021 on the OVID Medline, PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Results: A total of 160 papers were retrieved for narrative synthesis. The main methods available for temperature monitoring in neonates are human touch and mercury-in-glass, electronic, infrared tympanic and other infrared thermometers. Newer innovations that are also available include liquid crystal thermometers and the BEMPU TempWatch. This paper discusses the current evidence available regarding the utility of these devices, and identifies barriers to valid comparison of different thermometry methods. Conclusion: Many methods for temperature monitoring in neonates are currently available, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. However, the accuracies of different devices are hard to determine due to variable methodologies used in relevant studies and hence, further research that addresses these gaps is needed.

La mesure de la température en pratique pédiatrique quotidienne

The use of rectal mercury thermometer has long been the standard method for measurement of body temperature. The restriction of mercury use since 1996 has led to development of other devices. The liquid crystal strip thermometer held against the forehead has a low sensitivity. The single-use chemical thermometer measures oral temperature. Its accuracy must be evaluated. Infrared ear thermometers are routinely used because it is convenient and fast to use. However, numerous studies have shown that it does not show sufficient correlation with rectal temperature, leading to the risk to miss cases of true fever. Rectal temperature remains the gold standard in case of fever. Rectal temperature measurement with an electronic device is well correlated with the glass mercury standard. Galistan thermometer accuracy must be evaluated because of sterilization of the whole device, which is not the case for the electronic thermometer. A pediatric study is necessary to evaluate the performance of this device in comparison with the electronic thermometer.

Can There Be a Standard for Temperature Measurement in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit?

Temperature measurement is a commonly used assessment parameter when caring for the critically ill child. Interpreting the temperature measurement mode and what constitutes clinically significant thermal instability are poorly defined. Thus, decisions made regarding patient management based on temperature measurement can be challenging for caregivers. Infants and children have unique physioanatomic considerations that impact maintaining thermoregulation. Numerous routes for taking temperature measurements are described including the oral, axillary, tympanic (aural), rectal, skin, urinary bladder, pulmonary artery, esophageal, nasopharyngeal, supralingual (pacifier), and temporal-artery. Numerous studies on temperature measurement have been conducted on children of various ages using a variety of thermometers and routes in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Although there are limited studies reported on the critically ill child, research data pertinent to the critically ill child from subjects in the neonatal intensive care unit, pediatric intensive care unit, operating room, and inpatient units are summarized.

Detecting fever in young infants: reliability of perceived, pacifier, and temporal artery temperatures in infants younger than 3 months of age

OBJECTIVES

Fever in young infants frequently triggers a laboratory evaluation because of the increased likelihood of serious bacterial infections. Reported fever by methods other than rectal thermometry is of concern. This study evaluates the validity of perceived, pacifier, and temporal artery (TA) temperatures.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 200 babies younger than 3 months of age presenting to an emergency department was evaluated for parental perception of fever and with TA, pacifier, and rectal temperatures.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of perceived and TA detection of fever were similar at 91 and 79, and 83 and 86, respectively. Febrile pacifier readings had a sensitivity of 99, but a specificity of only 46.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal thermometry must remain the standard for infants younger than 3 months of age.

Limited accuracy and reliability of infrared axillary and aural thermometers in a pediatric outpatient population

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of infrared axillary and aural thermometers in the outpatient setting.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective observational study of infrared axillary, aural, and digital rectal temperature values from 198 children, aged 3 to 36 months (mean, 1.3 years).

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity of the axillary thermometer for rectal fever were 63.5% and 92.6%, respectively (diagnostic accuracy, 83.3%); those for the aural thermometer were 68.3% and 94.8%, respectively (diagnostic accuracy, 86.4%). For all patients, the mean biases of the axillary and aural temperatures were -0.33 degrees F and -0.24 degrees F, respectively. The biases of both thermometers' measurements were significantly correlated with rectal temperature (P <.02); thus, as rectal temperature increased, the accuracy of the compared axillary and aural temperature decreased. Underestimation of rectal temperature was greatest among febrile 1- to 3-year-old children (axillary bias, -1.20; aural bias, -0.36). Age was correlated with an axillary temperature bias (P <.01).

CONCLUSION

Axillary and aural infrared thermometers were comparable, albeit significantly different than rectal temperature measurements, particularly as the child's age and rectal temperature increased. These thermometers may be useful as noninvasive screening methods in outpatient settings for children who are at least 3 months old, but rectal values should be used for clinical accuracy.