Temperature measured at the axilla compared with rectum in children and young people: Systematic review

203Citations
Citations of this article
111Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Craig, J. V., Lancaster, G. A., Williamson, P. R., & Smyth, R. L. (2000). Temperature measured at the axilla compared with rectum in children and young people: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 320(7243), 1174–1178. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1174

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free