DOI: 10.36347/sjams.2022.v10i01.013

Pages: 82-86

Introduction: Although digital thermometers have made the temperature recording easy, quick and safe, with the risk of mercury completely excluded, there is still a risk of transmission of infection from one individual to another. Infrared thermometers offer a non-touch, rapid and convenient method of temperature recording, with virtually no risk of disease transmission. We conducted a study to assess and compare temperature recordings from an infrared forehead thermometer and axillary digital thermometer during fever, and once the fever subsides. Methods: Hundred patients attending the out-patient department of Department of Pediatrics at Dr.B.R Ambedkar medical college and hospital from September 2019 to December 2019, or those admitted in the wards with a complaint of fever were screened using two techniques – Axillary temperature recording using a digital thermometer and a forehead temperature was recorded using a non-contact infrared forehead thermometer. Patients were given antipyretics to treat the fever and temperature was again recorded once the fever subsided using the same method. Two medical personnel were trained to screen and record the respective findings from each method and they were blinded from the other outcome of other recording. Results: The mean IFR temperature measured in the febrile phase was 100.85 (± 0.76), which was significantly higher than the mean AD temperature, 100.21 (± 0.74). (p-value <.0001). In the afebrile phase as well, the mean IFR temperature was significantly higher than the mean AD temperature. Conclusion: IFR thermometers do provide an advantage of no-touch technique over the digital thermometer. However, as the results showed a weak correlation between IFR and axillary digital recordings, it is suggested that IFR thermometers be used for screening of children for fever as it decreases the contact and reduces the infection.