Cited by 26Infrared Thermography in MedicineThermal Regulation in MedicineNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

Non-contact infrared versus axillary and tympanic thermometers in children attending primary care: a mixed-methods study of accuracy and acceptability

Open access
Hayward, Gail, Verbakel, Jan Y, Ismail, Fatene Abakar, Edwards, George, Wang, Kay, Fleming, Susannah, Holtman, Gea A, Glogowska, Margaret +3 more·2020·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Background: Guidelines recommend measuring temperature in children presenting with fever using electronic axillary or tympanic thermometers. Non-contact thermometry offers advantages, yet has not been tested against recommended methods in primary care. Aim: To compare two different non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) to axillary and tympanic thermometers in children aged ≤5 years visiting their GP with an acute illness. Design and setting: Method comparison study with nested qualitative component. Method: Temperature measurements were taken with electronic axillary (Welch Allyn SureTemp®), electronic tympanic (Braun Thermoscan®), NCIT Thermofocus® 0800, and NCIT Firhealth Forehead. Parents rated acceptability and discomfort. Qualitative interviews explored parents’ experiences of the thermometers. Results: In total, 401 children were recruited (median age 1.6 years, 50.62% male). Mean difference between the Thermofocus NCIT and axillary thermometer was −0.14°C (95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.21 to −0.06°C); lower limit of agreement was −1.57°C (95% CI = −1.69 to −1.44°C) and upper limit 1.29°C (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.42°C). A second NCIT (Firhealth) had similar levels of agreement; however, the limits of agreement between tympanic and axillary thermometers were also wide. Parents expressed a preference for the practicality and comfort of NCITs, and were mostly negative about their child’s experience of axillary thermometers. But there was willingness to adopt whichever device was medically recommended. Conclusion: In a primary care paediatric population, temperature measurements with NCITs varied by >1°C compared with axillary and tympanic approaches. But there was also poor agreement between tympanic and axillary thermometers. Since clinical guidelines often rely on specific fever thresholds, clinicians should interpret peripheral thermometer readings with caution and in the context of a holistic assessment of the child.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp20x708845

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies using clinical data from hospitals and transit centers have been inconclusive regarding the use and effectiveness of NCITs as a screening method during SARS and influenza outbreaks.

    “Overall, previous studies using clinical data from hospitals and transit centers have been inconclusive regarding the use and effectiveness of NCITs as a screening method during SARS and influenza outbreaks.”

    From Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers (2021) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction says prior NCIT studies produced variable results and lacked clear conclusions; it also says most were conducted in paediatric inpatient or other hospital settings. It does not discuss transit-centre screening or NCIT use during SARS or influenza outbreaks, so those parts of the claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Hayward et al. measured the mean difference between NCIT and axillary thermometer temperatures to be −0.14 °C with a 95% confidence interval of −0.21 to −0.06 °C.

    “Hayward et al.7 measured the mean difference between NCIT and axillary thermometer temperatures to be − 0.14 °C with a 95% confidence interval of − 0.21 to − 0.06 °C.”

    From Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers (2021) · cites this paper as [7]

  • Clinical studies have reported mixed performance in terms of NCIT accuracies.

    “Although NCITs may be the primary tools for temperature screening during a pandemic, clinical studies have reported mixed performance in terms of their accuracies5–8.”

    From Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers (2021) · cites this paper as [7]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hayward, G., Verbakel, J. Y., Ismail, F. A., Edwards, G., Wang, K., Fleming, S., Holtman, G. A., Glogowska, M., Morris, E., Curtis, K., & van den Bruel, A.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2020-03-23
Volume
70
Issue
693
Pages
e236-e244
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W3012591261
Cited by
26
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (16/45/01, CL-2014-13-008, IPF-2018-12-002)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Infrared Thermography in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Thermal Regulation in Medicine
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
tympanic thermometry, body temperature measurement, pediatric fever, thermometer accuracy, acceptability, parental experiences, acute illness in children
MeSH terms
Axilla, Body Temperature, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Fever, Forehead, Humans, Infant, Infrared Rays, Male, Primary Health Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Thermometers, Tympanic Membrane, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review