透過您的圖書館登入
IP:13.59.49.138
  • 期刊

A Comparison of Aural and Rectal Temperature Measurements in Young Infants

嬰兒肛溫與耳溫的比較

摘要


目的:為了評估在三個月以下的嬰兒,由紅外線耳溫計測量的耳溫與由水銀溫度計測量的肛溫之間的相關性。病人與方法:我們使用兩種不同廠牌的紅外線耳溫計(Diatek 9000,Diatek Inc.CA. USA;及Thermoscope 2001,Biotek Inc. Taiwan)連續測量195個年齡介於一天至三個月大的嬰兒(94個男嬰、101個女嬰;平均年齡21.9±23.0天)的右耳耳溫,與同時測量的肛溫作比較。結果:我們發現Diatek 9000測量的耳溫平均比肛溫高山0.3℃,而Thermoscope2001測量的耳溫則平均比肛溫低0.4℃;不同廠牌的耳溫計測量的耳溫平均可以差到0.7℃;這些測量上的差距均已達到統計學上有意義的差異。結論:在三個月以下的嬰兒,由紅外線耳溫所測得的耳溫與肛溫之間的差異仍大,因此這個年齡層的體溫測量仍以肛溫為宜。如果使用紅外線耳溫計,則應該配合臨床狀況,謹慎的判讀測量的結果。

關鍵字

嬰兒 紅外線耳溫計 肛溫

並列摘要


Objective: To evaluate the agreement between rectal temperature and aural temperature obtained by two brands of infrared tympanic thermometers in young infants. Patients and Methods: The rectal and aural temperatures were measured in 195 infants (mean age 21.9 days old, range 1 day to 3 months). The rectal temperatures were measured with a rectal mercury-glass thermometer, while the aural temperatures were obtained from the right ears using infrared tympanic thermometers(Diatek 9000, Diatek Inc. CA. USA; and Thermoscope 2001, Biotek Inc. Taiwan). Results: The mean differences between rectal and aural temperature measurements and between diferent-brand measurements were all statistically significant (Diatek 9000 vs rectal, mean difference =0.30℃±0.40℃,95%CI: 0.23℃~0.34℃,p<0.001; Thermoscope 2001 vs rectal, mean difference = -0.40℃±0.30℃, 95% CI: -0.43℃~-0.34℃, P<0.001; Diatek 9000 vs Thermoscope 2001, mean difference=0.70℃±0.40℃, 95% CI: 0.61℃~0.72℃,p<0.001). Conclusions: The agreement between the rectal and aural temperatures using infrared tympanic thermometers in young infants is not clinically acceptable. When managing a young infant with suspicion of infection, using the rectal temperature is better. Otherwise one should interpret the aural temperature obtained by infrared tympanic thermometers carefully and keep alert to the clinical condition.

延伸閱讀