Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Jean V Craig aInstitute
of Child Health, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool L12 2AP, b Department of
Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX
Correspondence to: R L Smyth r.l.smyth{at}liv.ac.uk
Objective:
To evaluate the agreement between
temperature measured at the axilla and rectum in children and young people.
Design:
A systematic review of studies comparing
temperature measured at the axilla (test site) with temperature
measured at the rectum (reference site) using the same type of
measuring device at both sites in each patient. Devices were
mercury or electronic thermometers or indwelling thermocouple probes.
Studies reviewed:
40 studies including 5528 children
and young people from birth to 18 years.
Data extraction:
Difference in temperature readings at
the axilla and rectum.
Results:
20 studies (n=3201 (58%) participants) had sufficient data to be included in a meta-analysis. There was
significant residual heterogeneity in both mean differences and sample
standard deviations within the groups using different devices and
within age groups. The pooled (random effects) mean temperature
difference (rectal minus axillary temperature) for mercury thermometers
was 0.25°C (95% limits of agreement
0.15°C to 0.65°C) and for
electronic thermometers was 0.85°C (
0.19°C to 1.90°C).
The pooled (random effects) mean temperature difference (rectal
minus axillary temperature) for neonates was 0.17°C (
0.15°C to
0.50°C) and for older children and young people was 0.92°C
(
0.15°C to 1.98°C).
Conclusions:
The difference between temperature
readings at the axilla and rectum using either mercury or electronic
thermometers showed wide variation across studies. This has
implications for clinical situations where temperature needs to be
measured with precision.
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+