The results from previous studies agree that direct comparisons of the PAT and TAT are clinically comparable in the normal temperature range in adults. This was defined as a clinical significance difference of less than ±.5ºC (.9ºF. In the one study that assessed subjects with fevers (temperatures greater than 37.8oC (100.0oF) with some methodological criticism, compared the TAT to PAT in adults (n=15). There were poor correlations (r=0.3) among the adult measurements with a difference of 1.3+0.6o C. Eighty-nine percent of the TAT measurements were different than the PAT by more that ±.5ºC.
With only one study that focused in those who had a PAT outside the normal temperature range to evaluate accuracy and precision, there is a need for further research to assess the accuracy and precision of the TAT for detection of hyperthermia. A new onset of temperature equal to or above 100.4oF is defined as a fever and a temperature of 100.9oF is considered a reasonable trigger for a clinical assessment according to the Society of Critical Care Medicine in their fever guidelines for adults. Researchers synthesizing the literature on the TAT and other noninvasive temperature measurements, indicate that noninvasive temperature measurements are accurate for normal temperatures but may fail to detect hyperthermia and hypothermia, depending on the thermometer used. The authors concluded that the TAT is clinically comparable to the PAT in only the normal temperature range.
A repeated measures design will be used to describe the accuracy and precision of 2 temperature measurements, the PAT and the TAT. Study subjects will act as their own control in order to investigate the difference in PAT readings and the TAT readings in both the core and oral mode. The PAT will also be compared to the TAT reading taken by the clinical staff.
