Measurement of Body Temperature (Article Critique Sample)

Article Critique
Name
Affiliation
Course
Instructor
date
Article Critique
Body temperature is among the four significant vital signs that should be monitored to ensure effective and safe care. However, healthcare facilities face challenges in establishing the medical importance of the measured temperature and lack reliable methods and tools for determining body core temperature. While different methods and techniques are utilized to determine body temperature, it is crucial to use the most appropriate method to guarantee accuracy. Inaccurate readings may fail to establish patient deterioration and impact diagnosis and treatment, leading to compromised patient safety. Although the rectal temperature is the most precise technique for determining core temperature, it is often more time-consuming and unfavorable for some patients than the temporal artery temperature method.
Forehead or Ear Temperature Measurement Cannot Replace Rectal Measurements, Except for Screening Purposes.
In their article, Mogensen et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional study to compare rectal temperatures to tympanic and temporal temperatures in 0-18-year-old-children. They aimed to assess whether the ear or forehead temperature measurements could be utilized in screening to diagnose fever and if the conformity with the rectal temperature for diverse age groups is suitable for medical use. Their findings indicated that the rectal thermometer had a considerably greater capability to detect fever than the temporal and tympanic thermometers (Mogensen et al., 2018). However, the technique was traumatic compared to the other temperature measurement methods.
The study is an inclusive factual, pragmatic survey with sub-analyses in diverse age groups, augmenting its generalizability and applicability. Additionally, contrary to numerous published studies, it was evaluated using suitable techniques, including the Bland-Altman analysis. The technique was valuable in assessing the repeatability of values and determining the mean difference of the temperatures and the association between the degree of the compared analysis. However, the survey was conducted anonymously, making the comparison between non-participating and participating children to assess selection bias impossible. Additionally, the sequence of temperature measurements was similar throughout the research, which might have resulted in a bias.
The researchers should conduct the survey openly to enable comparison between the participating and non-participating children to determine the presence or absence of selection bias. They should also ensure varying temperature measurement sequences to eliminate possible selection bias. The study provides recommendations for accurate temperature measurements within health facilities. It suggests that clinicians should use rectal temperatures since the other techniques are less convincing as they have an agreement range of about ±1°C that is too wide for medical use.
Comparison Between Temporal and Rectal Temperature Measurement
In their publication, Nygaard, Maschmann, and Ekmann (2020) conducted a prospective, comparative study to compare the precision of conventional rectal thermometer (REC) and temporal artery thermometer (TAT) in adults above 18 years admitted in the emergency department. The variations between the REC and TAT ranged from -1.7°C to +1.7 °C. The standard deviation of the variances was ±0.47 signifying a broader disparity of measures than the initial acceptable