↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Accuracy and precision of four common peripheral temperature measurement methods in intensive care patients

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Accuracy and precision of four common peripheral temperature measurement methods in intensive care patients
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/mder.s109904
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simin Asadian, Alireza Khatony, Gholamreza Moradi, Alireza Abdi, Mansour Rezaei

Abstract

An accurate determination of body temperature in critically ill patients is a fundamental requirement for initiating the proper process of diagnosis, and also therapeutic actions; therefore, the aim of the study was to assess the accuracy and precision of four noninvasive peripheral methods of temperature measurement compared to the central nasopharyngeal measurement. In this observational prospective study, 237 patients were recruited from the intensive care unit of Imam Ali Hospital of Kermanshah. The patients' body temperatures were measured by four peripheral methods; oral, axillary, tympanic, and forehead along with a standard central nasopharyngeal measurement. After data collection, the results were analyzed by paired t-test, kappa coefficient, receiver operating characteristic curve, and using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 19, software. There was a significant meaningful correlation between all the peripheral methods when compared with the central measurement (P<0.001). Kappa coefficients showed good agreement between the temperatures of right and left tympanic membranes and the standard central nasopharyngeal measurement (88%). Paired t-test demonstrated an acceptable precision with forehead (P=0.132), left (P=0.18) and right (P=0.318) tympanic membranes, oral (P=1.00), and axillary (P=1.00) methods. Sensitivity and specificity of both the left and right tympanic membranes were more than for other methods. The tympanic and forehead methods had the highest and lowest accuracy for measuring body temperature, respectively. It is recommended to use the tympanic method (right and left) for assessing a patient's body temperature in the intensive care units because of high accuracy and acceptable precision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 18%
Other 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Researcher 5 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 40 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Engineering 11 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 41 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,722,293
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#52
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,039
of 348,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.