Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 3, 2025
Mouse Body Temperature Measurement Using Infrared Thermometer During Passive Systemic Anaphylaxis and Food Allergy Evaluation
Published on: September 14, 2018
Non-contact infrared thermometers compared with current approaches in primary care for children aged 5 years and
Ann Van den Bruel1,2, Jan Verbakel1,2, Kay Wang1
1Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Insights
Non-contact infrared thermometers offer reduced distress and infection risk for children in primary care. However, their agreement with axillary measurements and fever detection accuracy requires further investigation for clinical decision-making.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric primary care
- Medical device evaluation
- Thermometry
Background:
- Current temperature measurement methods for children in primary care include electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers.
- Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) present a potential alternative to reduce child distress and cross-infection risks.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy and acceptability of non-contact infrared thermometers against standard electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers in children presenting to primary care.
- To assess diagnostic accuracy for fever detection and parental/child comfort levels with different thermometer types.
Main Methods:
- A method comparison study involving 401 children (aged ≤5 years) with acute illnesses in primary care settings.
- Two NCITs (Thermofocus and Firhealth) were compared with electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers.
- Included a nested qualitative study with parental interviews.
Main Results:
- Both NCITs showed wide limits of agreement (> 1°C) with axillary thermometers, potentially impacting clinical decisions.
- Thermofocus demonstrated moderate sensitivity (66.7%) and high specificity (98.0%) for fever detection; Firhealth had low sensitivity (12.5%) but high specificity (99.4%).
- Parents found all methods acceptable, but axillary thermometers caused the most discomfort; NCITs required fewer readings.
Conclusions:
- The wide limits of agreement and variable sensitivity of NCITs compared to axillary thermometers raise concerns for clinical decision-making in pediatric fever management.
- Further development of peripheral thermometers with better agreement to central thermometry is needed.
Background:
Current options for temperature measurement in children presenting to primary care include either electronic axillary or infrared tympanic thermometers. Non-contact infrared thermometers could reduce both the distress of the child and the risk of cross-infection.
Objectives:
The objective of this study was to compare the use of non-contact thermometers with the use of electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers in children presenting to primary care.
Design:
Method comparison study with a nested qualitative study.
Setting:
Primary care in Oxfordshire.
Participants:
Children aged ≤ 5 years attending with an acute illness.
Interventions:
Two types of non-contact infrared thermometers [i.e. Thermofocus (Tecnimed, Varese, Italy) and Firhealth (Firhealth, Shenzhen, China)] were compared with an electronic axillary thermometer and an infrared tympanic thermometer.
Main Outcome Measures:
The primary outcome was agreement between the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer and the axillary thermometer. Secondary outcomes included agreement between all other sets of thermometers, diagnostic accuracy for detecting fever, parental and child ratings of acceptability and discomfort, and themes arising from our qualitative interviews with parents.
Results:
A total of 401 children (203 boys) were recruited, with a median age of 1.6 years (interquartile range 0.79-3.38 years). The readings of the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer differed from those of the axillary thermometer by -0.14 °C (95% confidence interval -0.21 to -0.06 °C) on average with the lower limit of agreement being -1.57 °C (95% confidence interval -1.69 to -1.44 °C) and the upper limit being 1.29 °C (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.42 °C). The readings of the Firhealth non-contact infrared thermometer differed from those of the axillary thermometer by -0.16 °C (95% confidence interval -0.23 to -0.09 °C) on average, with the lower limit of agreement being -1.54 °C (95% confidence interval -1.66 to -1.41 °C) and the upper limit being 1.22 °C (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.34 °C). The difference between the first and second readings of the Thermofocus was -0.04 °C (95% confidence interval -0.07 to -0.01 °C); the lower limit was -0.56 °C (95% confidence interval -0.60 to -0.51 °C) and the upper limit was 0.47 °C (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.52 °C). The difference between the first and second readings of the Firhealth thermometer was 0.01 °C (95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04 °C); the lower limit was -0.60 °C (95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.54 °C) and the upper limit was 0.61 °C (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.67 °C). Sensitivity and specificity for the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer were 66.7% (95% confidence interval 38.4% to 88.2%) and 98.0% (95% confidence interval 96.0% to 99.2%), respectively. For the Firhealth non-contact infrared thermometer, sensitivity was 12.5% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 38.3%) and specificity was 99.4% (95% confidence interval 98.0% to 99.9%). The majority of parents found all methods to be acceptable, although discomfort ratings were highest for the axillary thermometer. The non-contact thermometers required fewer readings than the comparator thermometers.
Limitations:
A method comparison study does not compare new methods against a reference standard, which in this case would be central thermometry requiring the placement of a central line, which is not feasible or acceptable in primary care. Electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers have been found to have moderate agreement themselves with central temperature measurements.
Conclusions:
The 95% limits of agreement are > 1 °C for both non-contact infrared thermometers compared with electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers, which could affect clinical decision-making. Sensitivity for fever was low to moderate for both non-contact thermometers.
Future Work:
Better methods for peripheral temperature measurement that agree well with central thermometry are needed.
Trial Registration:
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15413321.
Funding:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Related Concept Videos
01:14Temperature Measurement Sites
Oral: When assessing oral temperature, the thermometer tip should be placed under the tongue in the posterior sublingual pocket. It offers accurate readings and can be...
01:13Equipments Used to Measure Body Temperature
Glass-bulb Thermometer:
Glass-bulb thermometers are hollow glass tubes with a bulb tip containing liquid such as ethanol or mercury. Historically, glass bulb mercury thermometers were the standard device to measure body temperature. Today, mercury thermometers are prohibited in many countries due to the hazardous effects of mercury and the risk of exposure if the glass bulb breaks. In general,...
01:27Assessing Body Temperature - Rectal
Follow these steps for rectal temperature assessment:
Step 1: Perform hand hygiene and don clean gloves to prevent cross-infection.
Step 2: Position the patient in a side-lying position to better visualize the rectal...
01:14Assessing Body Temperature - Tympanic membrane
Step 1: Begin by practicing good hand hygiene to prevent the transmission of microorganisms.
Step 2: Turn on the thermometer and wait until the ready sign appears on the screen to ensure accurate measurement.
Step 3: Slide the probe cover in place to prevent cross-contamination.
Step 4: Instruct the patient to tilt their head to the side for comfort and check for cerumen...
01:19Assessing Body Temperature - Temporal Artery
Step 1: Perform hand hygiene and don a fresh pair of gloves to prevent cross-infection and ensure patient safety.
Step 2: Explain the procedure to the patient to establish trust. Clear communication establishes trust with the patient, ensures they understand what to expect, promotes cooperation, and enhances comfort during the procedure.
Step 3: Assess the patient's...
01:14Assessing Body Temperature - Oral
Step 1:
Start by practicing proper hand hygiene to prevent the spread of microorganisms.
Step 2:
Take the thermometer out of the charging unit, switch it on, and wait for the ready sign.
Step 3:
Gently slide the probe cover until a click is heard. This simple action prevents cross-contamination and ensures the correct placement of the probe cover.
Step 4:
Instruct the patient to open their mouth and place...