Accuracy of peripheral thermometers for estimating temperature: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Body temperature is commonly used to screen patients for infectious diseases, establish diagnoses, monitor therapy, and guide management decisions.

To determine the accuracy of peripheral thermometers for estimating core body temperature in adults and children.

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL Plus from inception to July 2015.

Prospective studies comparing the accuracy of peripheral (tympanic membrane, temporal artery, axillary, or oral) thermometers with central (pulmonary artery catheter, urinary bladder, esophageal, or rectal) thermometers.

2 reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes and assessed the quality of individual studies.

75 studies (8682 patients) were included. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of patient selection bias (74%) or index test bias (67%). Compared with central thermometers, peripheral thermometers had pooled 95% limits of agreement (random-effects meta-analysis) outside the predefined clinically acceptable range (± 0.5 °C), especially among patients with fever (-1.44 °C to 1.46 °C for adults; -1.49 °C to 0.43 °C for children) and hypothermia (-2.07 °C to 1.90 °C for adults; no data for children). For detection of fever (bivariate random-effects meta-analysis), sensitivity was low (64% [95% CI, 55% to 72%]; I2 = 95.7%; P < 0.001) but specificity was high (96% [CI, 93% to 97%]; I2 = 96.3%; P < 0.001). Only 1 study reported sensitivity and specificity for the detection of hypothermia.

High-quality data for some temperature measurement techniques are limited. Pooled data are associated with interstudy heterogeneity that is not fully explained by stratified and metaregression analyses.

Peripheral thermometers do not have clinically acceptable accuracy and should not be used when accurate measurement of body temperature will influence clinical decisions.

None.