Evaluation of different body temperature measurement methods for patients in the intraoperative period.

OBJECTIVES: this study aimed at estimating and comparing the reliability of temperature measurements obtained using a peripheral infrared temporal thermometer, a central cutaneous thermometer ("Zero-Heat-Flux Cutaneous thermometer") and an esophageal or nasopharyngeal thermometer among elective surgical patients in the intraoperative period. METHOD: a longitudinal study with repeated measures carried out by convenience sampling of 99 patients, aged at least 18 years old, undergoing elective abdominal cancer surgeries, with anesthesia lasting at least one hour, with each patient having their temperature measured by all three methods. RESULTS: the intraclass correlation coefficient showed a low correlation between the measurements using the peripheral temporal thermometer and the central cutaneous (0.0324) and esophageal/nasopharyngeal (-0.138) thermometers. There was a high correlation (0.744) between the central thermometers evaluated. CONCLUSION: the data from the current study do not recommend using infrared temporal thermometers as a strategy for measuring the body temperature of patients undergoing anesthetic-surgical procedures. Central cutaneous thermometers and esophageal/nasopharyngeal thermometers are equivalent for detecting intraoperative hypothermia.

Controle de termômetros / Control de los termómetros / Control of thermometers

Esta Norma Técnica tem por objetivo estabelecer as orientações necessárias para aferição e leitura dos termômetros utilizados no controle de temperatura nos Bancos de Leite Humano e Postos de Coleta de Leite Humano, visando a garantia da qualidade nestes serviços e sua certificação.

Esta Norma Técnica tiene como objetivo establecer las orientaciones necesarias para la medición y la lectura de los termómetros utilizados en el control de la temperatura en los Bancos de Leche Humana y en los Centros de Recolección de Leche Humana, con el fin de garantizar la calidad de estos servicios y su certificación.

Controle de temperatura dos freezers / Control de la temperatura de los congeladores / Freezer temperature control

Esta Norma Técnica tem por objetivo estabelecer as orientações necessárias para o controle de temperatura dos freezers em Bancos de Leite humano e Postos de Coleta de Leite Humano, visando a garantia da qualidade em Bancos de Leite Humano e sua certificação.

Esta Norma Técnica tiene como objetivo establecer las directrices necesarias para el control de la temperatura de los congeladores en los Bancos de Leche Humana y en los Centros de Recolección de Leche Humana con el fin de asegurar la calidad en los Bancos de Leche Humana y su certificación.

Prospective comparison of thermometers used in very preterm infants.

We measured temperature on admission to the neonatal unit in a cohort of 54 very preterm infants. We measured rectal temperature with a digital thermometer (Microlife MT-1931) as the gold standard (MT-R). We also measured axillary temperature with the MT (MT-A), with the Welch Allyn SureTemp Plus 692 in 'continuous' (WAC) mode and in the default 'predictive' (WAP) mode. While MT-A and WAC frequently differed from MT-R by ≥0.3°C, they were both reasonably sensitive and specific for hypothermia (MT-R <36.5°C). WAP overestimated MT-R by ≥0.5°C on 37/53 (70%) occasions and had poor sensitivity for hypothermia, identifying only 2 of 29 infants with MT-R <36.5°C as hypothermic.

Is current body temperature measurement practice fit-for-purpose?

There has been a marked rise in the number of avoidable deaths in health services around the world. At the same time there has been a growing increase in antibiotic resistant so-called "superbugs." We examine here the potential role of body temperature measurement in these adverse trends. Electronic based thermometers have replaced traditional mercury (and other liquid-in-glass type) thermometers for reasons of safety rather than superiority. Electronic thermometers are in general less robust from a measurement perspective than their predecessors. We illustrate the implications of unreliable temperature measurement on the diagnosis and management of disease, including COVID-19, through statistical calculations. Since a return to mercury thermometers is both undesirable and impractical, we call for better governance in the current practice of clinical thermometry to ensure the traceability and long-term accuracy of electronic thermometers and discuss how this could be achieved.

Assessing rectal temperature with a novel non-invasive sensor.

Athletes, soldiers, and workers who perform intense physical activities under extreme hot conditions might encounter increased physiological thermal strain. Consequently, the increase in body core temperature (Tc) might result in heat exhaustion and heatstroke. Thus, continuously following changes in Tc is of utmost importance. Recently, the Tcore sensor (Dräger, Germany), which employs a unique dual-sensor heat flux technology, became commercially available to measure Tc, in a hospital-controlled environment. This study aimed to evaluate the possibility of using the Tcore sensor to accurately monitor rectal temperature (Tre), reflecting Tc, under exercise-heat stress. Thirteen healthy young males completed the study protocol, consisting of 90 min of moderate exercise (walking on a treadmill - 5 km/h, 4% elevation) under controlled hot/dry and hot/wet climatic conditions (30 °C/60% rh, 34 °C/40% rh, and 40 °C/40% rh). Tcore sensors were placed on the forehead and the left wrist. Temperatures from both Tcore sensors were recorded continuously together with Tre using a rectal thermistor. The original algorithm used by the company to estimate Tre from the Tcore sensor was found to be inadequate under the study's conditions and new models for the forehead and the wrist measurements were developed. Nearly 150,000 measurement sets (after filtering) were used to build independent MATLAB software algorithms and test their reliability according to the cross-validation algorithm. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare between the results obtained by the new models to Tre. The database consisted of a large Tre range (36.5-38.9 °C). The mean errors of the models were close to zero, and the mean absolute errors were 0.20 ± 0.16 °C and 0.27 ± 0.20 °C for the forehead and wrist, respectively. 95% of the measurements from the forehead model and 86% from the wrist model were within ±0.5 °C of Tre, and 78% (forehead) and 64% (wrist) were within ±0.3 °C. Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) values were 0.29 °C and 0.40 °C for the forehead and wrist models, respectively. The developed models show the feasibility to use the Tcore sensor for assessing Tre under exercise-heat conditions. Furthermore, the sensor was found to be adequate for use on the wrist as well, which might be more practical for use in field conditions.

Bench-top comparison of thermometers used in newborn infants.

We wished to determine the accuracy of thermometers used to measure temperature in newborn infants. We measured the temperature of a water bath with three types of thermometer set at 0.5°C increments between 32.5°C and 38.5°C and compared the values to a control. We recorded the time to display steady-state temperature. The Microlife thermometer most closely approximated control temperature (mean difference <0.1°C (SD<0.1°C)) and displayed a reading in a mean time of 29 s (SD 2 s). Used in 'predictive' (default) mode, the Welch Allyn SureTemp Plus 692 thermometer differed from the control by a mean of 0.6°C (SD 0.3°C), displaying a temperature at 15 s (SD 3 s). This device consistently overestimated temperature. In 'continuous' mode, the mean difference was <0.1°C (SD<0.1°C) at 5 min. The Phillips probe differed from the control by a mean of 0.4°C (SD 0.2°C). Thermometers used to measure temperature in newborn infants may underestimate hypothermia. A prospective study in newborn infants is needed.

The diagnostic accuracy of digital, infrared and mercury-in-glass thermometers in measuring body temperature: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Not much is known about how accurate and reproducible different thermometers are at diagnosing patients with suspected fever. The study aims at evaluating which peripheral thermometers are more accurate and reproducible. We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, WOS, CENTRAL, and Cinahl to perform: (1) diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis (MA) using rectal mercury-in-glass or digital thermometry as reference, and bivariate models for pooling; (2) network MA to estimate differences in mean temperature between devices; (3) Bland-Altman method to estimate 95% coefficient of reproducibility. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020174996. We included 46 studies enrolling more than 12,000 patients. Using 38 °C (100.4 â„‰) as cut-off temperature, temporal infrared thermometry had a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.65, 0.84; low certainty) and specificity of 0.96 (0.92, 0.98; moderate certainty); tympanic infrared thermometry had a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.60,  0.88; low certainty) and specificity of 0.98 (0.95, 0.99; moderate certainty). For all the other index devices, it was not possible to pool the estimates. Compared to the rectal mercury-in-glass thermometer, mean temperature differences were not statistically different from zero for temporal or tympanic infrared thermometry; the median coefficient of reproducibility ranged between 0.53 °C [0.95 â„‰] for infrared temporal and 1.2 °C [2.16 â„‰] for axillary digital thermometry. Several peripheral thermometers proved specific, but not sensitive for diagnosing fever with rectal thermometry as a reference standard, meaning that finding a temperature below 38 °C does not rule out fever. Fixed differences between temperatures together with random error means facing differences between measurements in the order of 2 °C [4.5 â„‰]. This study informs practitioners of the limitations associated with different thermometers; peripheral ones are specific but not sensitive.

Non-contact infrared thermometers compared with current approaches in primary care for children aged 5 years and under: a method comparison study.

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.

General practitioners commonly measure children's temperature using a thermometer placed in the armpit or ear canal. New 'non-contact' thermometers use infrared light to measure temperature without touching the child. They are easy to use and there is no risk of passing on infections. However, we do not know how well they measure temperature compared with thermometers that use the armpit or the ear. This study aimed to compare two non-contact thermometers with current thermometers. We measured children's temperature with all thermometer types, and asked children and their parents about their views. The study was performed in general practices in Oxfordshire with children aged ≤ 5 years who had come to see their general practitioner because they had recently become unwell. Both the cheaper and more expensive non-contact thermometers gave slightly lower temperature readings on average than current thermometers. The vast majority of readings ranged from 1.6 °C lower to 1.3 °C higher than current thermometers. The detection of fever of at least 38 °C was low to moderate for both non-contact thermometers. Most parents did not think that their child was distressed by having their temperature taken using any of the thermometers, but the armpit thermometer was rated as the least comfortable. When interviewed, parents were more negative about the armpit thermometers, although still willing to use them if they were recommended by doctors. Although we found that the readings from the different thermometers did not match, we do not know whether the non-contact or the current thermometers were giving readings that were closer to the real temperature of the child. To understand this, we would need to do a study that included a more invasive procedure for temperature assessment.

Diagnostic accuracy of non-contact infrared thermometers and thermal scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Infrared thermal screening, via the use of handheld non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) and thermal scanners, has been widely implemented all over the world. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate its diagnostic accuracy for the detection of fever. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, bioRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, COVID-19 research database, Epistemonikos, EPPI-Centre, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Scopus and Web of Science databases for studies where a non-contact infrared device was used to detect fever against a reference standard of conventional thermometers. Forest plots and Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristics curves were used to describe the pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio. From a total of 1063 results, 30 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 19 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.808 (95%CI 0.656-0.903) and 0.920 (95%CI 0.769-0.975), respectively, for the NCITs (using forehead as the site of measurement), and 0.818 (95%CI 0.758-0.866) and 0.923 (95%CI 0.823-0.969), respectively, for thermal scanners. The sensitivity of NCITs increased on use of rectal temperature as the reference. The sensitivity of thermal scanners decreased in a disease outbreak/pandemic setting. Changes approaching statistical significance were also observed on the exclusion of neonates from the analysis. Thermal screening had a low positive predictive value, especially at the initial stage of an outbreak, whereas the negative predictive value (NPV) continued to be high even at later stages. Thermal screening has reasonable diagnostic accuracy in the detection of fever, although it may vary with changes in subject characteristics, setting, index test and the reference standard used. Thermal screening has a good NPV even during a pandemic. The policymakers must take into consideration the factors surrounding the screening strategy while forming ad-hoc guidelines.

Body temperature measurement in ambulance: a challenge of 21-st century?

BACKGROUND: Some crucial decisions in treatment of hypothermic patients are closely linked to core body temperature. They concern modification of resuscitation algorithms and choosing the target hospital. Under- as well as over-estimation of a patient's temperature may limit his chances for survival. Only thermometers designed for core temperature measurement can serve as a guide in such decision making. The aim of the study was to assess whether ambulance teams are equipped properly to measure core temperature. METHODS: A survey study was conducted in collaboration with the Health Ministry in April 2018. Questionnaires regarding the model, number, and year of production of thermometers were sent to each pre-hospital unit of the National Emergency Medical System in Poland. RESULTS: A total of 1523 ground ambulances are equipped with 1582 thermometers. 53.57% are infrared-based ear thermometers, 23.02% are infrared-based surface thermometers, and 20.13% are conventional medical thermometers. Only 3.28% of devices are able to measure core body temperature. Most of analyzed thermometers (91.4%) are not allowed to operate in ambient temperature below 10 °C. CONCLUSIONS: There are only 3.28% of ground ambulances that are able to follow precisely international guidelines regarding a patient's core body temperature. A light, reliable thermometer designed to measure core temperature in pre-hospital conditions is needed.

Determining the accuracy of zero-flux and ingestible thermometers in the peri-operative setting.

Accurately monitoring peri-operative core temperature is a cornerstone of good practice. Relatively invasive devices such as oesophageal temperature probes and pulmonary artery catheters facilitate this, but are inappropriate for many patients. There remains a need for accurate monitors of core temperature that can be used in awake patients. This study compared the accuracy of two core temperature thermometers that can be used for this purpose: the 3M Bair Hugger™ Temperature Monitoring System Zero Flux Thermometer and the CorTempR™ Wireless Ingestible Temperature Sensor. Readings were compared with the oesophageal probe, the current intraoperative standard. Thirty patients undergoing elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia were recruited. The ingestible sensor was ingested prior to induction of anaethesia, and post induction, the zero-flux electrode attached above the right eyebrow and oesophageal probe inserted. During surgery, the temperature on each device was recorded every minute. Measurements were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. The ingestible sensor experienced interference from use of diathermy and fluoroscopy in the operating theatre, rendering 39% of its readings unusable. These were removed from analysis. With remaining readings the bias compared with oesophageal probe was + 0.42 °C, with 95% limits of agreement - 2.4 °C to 3.2 °C. 75.4% of readings were within ± 0.5 °C of the OTP reading. The bias for the zero flux electrode compared to oesophageal probe was + 0.02 °C with 95% limits of agreement - 0.5 °C to 0.5 °C. 97.7% of readings were within ± 0.5 °C of the oesophageal probe. The study findings suggest the zero-flux thermometer is sufficiently accurate for clinical use, whereas the ingestible sensor is not.Trial registration The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT Number: NCT02121574.

Fabrication and Testing of Photonic Thermometers.

In recent years, a push for developing novel silicon photonic devices for telecommunications has generated a vast knowledge base that is now being leveraged for developing sophisticated photonic sensors. Silicon photonic sensors seek to exploit the strong confinement of light in nano-waveguides to transduce changes in physical state to changes in resonance frequency. In the case of thermometry, the thermo-optic coefficient, i.e., changes in refractive index due to temperature, causes the resonant frequency of the photonic device such as a Bragg grating to drift with temperature. We are developing a suite of photonic devices that leverage recent advances in telecom compatible light sources to fabricate cost-effective photonic temperature sensors, which can be deployed in a wide variety of settings ranging from controlled laboratory conditions, to the noisy environment of a factory floor or a residence. In this manuscript, we detail our protocol for the fabrication and testing of photonic thermometers.

A comparison of temporal artery thermometers with internal blood monitors to measure body temperature during hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Thermometers that measure core (internal) body temperature are the gold standard for monitoring temperature. Despite that most modern hemodialysis machines are equipped with an internal blood monitor that measures core body temperature, current practice is to use peripheral thermometers. A better understanding of how peripheral thermometers compare with the dialysis machine thermometer may help guide practice. METHODS: The study followed a prospective cross-sectional design. Hemodialysis patients were recruited from 2 sites in Calgary, Alberta (April - June 2017). Body temperatures were obtained from peripheral (temporal artery) and dialysis machine thermometers concurrently. Paired t-tests, Bland-Altman plots, and quantile-quantile plots were used to compare measurements from the two devices and to explore potential factors affecting temperature in hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: The mean body temperature of 94 hemodialysis patients measured using the temporal artery thermometer (36.7 °C) was significantly different than the dialysis machine thermometer (36.4 °C); p < 0.001. The mean difference (0.27 °C) appeared to be consistent across average temperature (range: 35.8-37.3 °C). CONCLUSIONS: Temperature measured by the temporal artery thermometer was statistically and clinically higher than that measured by the dialysis machine thermometer. Using the dialysis machine to monitor body temperature may result in more accurate readings and is likely to reduce the purchasing and maintenance costs associated with manual temperature readings, as well as easing the workload for dialysis staff.

Axillary Temperature, as Recorded by the iThermonitor WT701, Well Represents Core Temperature in Adults Having Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Core temperature can be accurately measured from the esophagus or nasopharynx during general anesthesia, but neither site is suitable for neuraxial anesthesia. We therefore determined the precision and accuracy of a novel wireless axillary thermometer, the iThermonitor, to determine its suitability for use during neuraxial anesthesia and in other patients who are not intubated. METHODS: We enrolled 80 adults having upper abdominal surgery with endotracheal intubation. Intraoperative core temperature was measured in distal esophagus and was estimated at the axilla with a wireless iThermonitor WT701 (Raiing Medical, Boston MA) at 5-minute intervals. Pairs of axillary and reference distal esophageal temperatures were compared and summarized using linear regression and repeated-measured Bland-Altman methods. We a priori determined that the iThermonitor would have clinically acceptable accuracy if most estimates were within ±0.5°C of the esophageal reference, and suitable precision if the limits of agreement were within ±0.5°C. RESULTS: There were 3339 sets of paired temperatures. Axillary and esophageal temperatures were similar, with a mean difference (esophageal minus axillary) of only 0.14°C ± 0.26°C (standard deviation). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were reasonably narrow, with the estimated upper limit at 0.66°C and the lower limit at -0.38°C, thus ±0.52°C, indicating good agreement across the range of mean temperatures from 34.9°C to 38.1°C. The absolute difference was within 0.5°C in 91% of the measurements (95% confidence interval, 88%-93%). CONCLUSIONS: Axillary temperature, as recorded by the iThermonitor WT701, well represents core temperature in adults having noncardiac surgery and thus appears suitable for clinical use.

Digital Axillary and Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers for Children.

Axillary digital thermometers (ADTs) and non-contact (infrared) forehead thermometers (NCIFTs) are commonly used in pediatric settings, where an incorrect body temperature measurement may delay treatments or lead to incorrect diagnoses and therapies. Several studies comparing ADT or NCIFT with other methods have found conflicting results. To investigate whether ADT and NCIFT can be used interchangeably, a comparative observational study was conducted involving 205 children aged 0 to 14 years who were consecutively admitted to the pediatric emergency department. The Bland-Altman plot illustrated agreement between the two methods. A total of 217 pairs of measurements were compared; axillary measurements showed average values significantly higher than forehead measurements (37.52°C and 37.12°C; t = 7.42, p = .000), with a mean difference of 0.41°C between the two methods (range = -1.80 and +2.40). In this setting and population, ADT and NCIFT cannot be used interchangeably.

Precision, Sensitivity and Patient Preference of Non-Invasive Thermometers in a Pediatric Surgical Acute Care Setting.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the project was to compare the temporal artery thermometer (TAT) to the digital probe thermometer readings at axillary or oral sites, to determine the relative precision and sensitivity of the three methods of thermometry, to compare their readings to core temperature when feasible, and to survey patient and family thermometer preferences. DESIGN & METHODS: A randomized crossover design in a 70-bed surgical unit over eight months. Two sets of temperature measurements were obtained for each patient: TAT, axillary, oral (depending on patient ability) and a bladder temperature representing core body temperature (when available). Each method was used twice on each patient, to examine within-method precision. Following measurement, patients or caregivers provided their thermometer preference. For younger/nonverbal patients, a professional observer recorded a disruption score. N=298 patients were enrolled RESULTS: TAT was more precise than oral and axillary thermometers (p<0.001 vs. axillary, p=0.001 vs. oral). TAT measurements were higher on average than axillary and oral, by 0.7°C and 0.6°C respectively (p<0.001). TAT's disruption score for younger patients was 0.6 points lower on average than axillary (p<0.001). 84% of patients and families who indicated a clear thermometry preference chose TAT. Only 3 patients had bladder-temperature devices, and therefore accuracy could not be analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: TAT is more precise, more fever sensitive, less disruptive to younger children, and more preferred by patients and families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: TAT is an acceptable temperature measure that could be substituted for oral or axillary temperature in acute care pediatric settings.