Accuracy of aural infrared temperature device

McKenzie, Naja E.

doi:10.1016/s0022-3476(95)70581-3

“…In practical applications of IRETs users are faced with the problem of so-called 'clinical accuracy'. The deviations in reading of an IRET may be influenced by the age of patients (Brennan et al 1995, Petersen-Smith et al 1994, Stavem et al 1997 3 (new born up to one year, children, adults), their physical condition (Romanovsky et al 1997) (healthy, febrile, asleep, unconscious), physiological variations in normal body temperature (see footnote 3) (digestion of food, exercise, diurnal variation, menstrual cycle, pregnancy, warm or cold environment, emotion), place where the readings are taken (Childs et al 1999, Manian and Griesenauer 1998, McKenzie 1995, in which ear (Childs et al 1999, Lee et right), positioning in the ear channel (Childs et al 1999) (straight, inclined), obstructions in the ear channel (Holtmann 1999) (cerumen), etc. The deviations may be a combination of several influences, but before they are systematically investigated, a user must be absolutely certain of the quality performance of IRETs, which are used for such investigations.…”

Section: Practical Use and Problems Of An Iretmentioning

confidence: 99%

IR ear thermometers: what do they measure and how do they comply with the EU technical regulation?

Pušnik

¹

,

Ham

²

,

Drnovšek

³

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical diagnostics and clinical practice rely extensively on test and measurement instrumentation. It is therefore of paramount importance that test and measurement instrumentation provides reliable data of sufficient stability, within appropriate limits of accuracy. At the same time the intended purpose of a particular measuring instrument has to be taken into account. The essential problem of every measuring instrument is that it measures and indicates basically what appears at the input of the measuring instrument, which might be significantly different from the real condition of a measurand. Namely, it is assumed that a measurand is stable, repeatable, and relatively unsusceptible to environmental influences. All these requirements are difficult to assure in a biological system and especially difficult in medical practice. Technology could easily provide high-resolution measurements, but due to natural instability of a measurand and various influential parameters the measurement uncertainty is inevitable. Sometimes even gross measurement errors are introduced. To achieve the expected accuracy for intended purpose is therefore much more demanding than merely relying on manufacturers' specifications. This paper describes and analyses the mentioned dilemmas in the case of widely used infrared ear thermometers, with their benefits and limitations, as well as with regard to the European technical regulation in the field of medical devices.

show abstract

“…The deviations in reading of an IRET may be influenced by the age of patients (Brennan et al 1995, Petersen-Smith et al 1994, Stavem et al 1997 (new born up to one year, children, adults), their physical condition (Romanovsky et al 1997) (healthy, febrile, asleep, unconscious), physiological variations in normal body temperature (see footnote 3) (digestion of food, exercise, diurnal variation, menstrual cycle, pregnancy, warm or cold environment, emotion), place where the readings are taken (Childs et al 1999, Manian and Griesenauer 1998, McKenzie 1995, in which ear (Childs et al 1999, Lee et right), positioning in the ear channel (Childs et al 1999) (straight, inclined), obstructions in the ear channel (Holtmann 1999) (cerumen), etc. The deviations may be a combination of several influences, but before they are systematically investigated, a user must be absolutely certain of the quality performance of IRETs, which are used for such investigations.…”

Section: Practical Use and Problems Of An Iretmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quasi-invariant measures on non-Archimedean semigroups of loops

Lyudkovskii¹

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical diagnostics and clinical practice rely extensively on test and measurement instrumentation. It is therefore of paramount importance that test and measurement instrumentation provides reliable data of sufficient stability, within appropriate limits of accuracy. At the same time the intended purpose of a particular measuring instrument has to be taken into account. The essential problem of every measuring instrument is that it measures and indicates basically what appears at the input of the measuring instrument, which might be significantly different from the real condition of a measurand. Namely, it is assumed that a measurand is stable, repeatable, and relatively unsusceptible to environmental influences. All these requirements are difficult to assure in a biological system and especially difficult in medical practice. Technology could easily provide high-resolution measurements, but due to natural instability of a measurand and various influential parameters the measurement uncertainty is inevitable. Sometimes even gross measurement errors are introduced. To achieve the expected accuracy for intended purpose is therefore much more demanding than merely relying on manufacturers' specifications. This paper describes and analyses the mentioned dilemmas in the case of widely used infrared ear thermometers, with their benefits and limitations, as well as with regard to the European technical regulation in the field of medical devices.

show abstract

“…The main reason is their advantage of performing quick, simple and non-invasive measurements. Unfortunately, their disadvantages are not clearly explained, although numerous problems are reported mainly by users of IRETs (Brennan et al 1995, Craig et al 2002, Manian et al 1998, McKenzie 1995, Petersen-Smith et al 1994, Romanovsky et al 1997. In several standards (ASTM Standards 1998, Japan Measuring Instruments Federation 2002, CEN 2003 C. Experts in radiation thermometry can help manufacturers and medical staff in checking of IRETs' compliance with the requirements of related standards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilateral comparison of blackbody cavities for calibration of infrared ear thermometers between NPL and FE/LMK

Pušnik

¹

,

Simpson

²

,

Drnovšek

³

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper describes the comparison method and analyses the results of comparison in terms of agreement between the blackbody of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), United Kingdom and four different blackbody cavities of the Laboratory of Metrology and Quality (LMK), at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical Engineering (FE), Slovenia. Three cavity shapes are suggested in different standards as suitable for calibration of infrared ear thermometers (IRETs), while one cavity shape was proposed by the LMK. The agreement between blackbody cavities was determined with the help of platinum resistance thermometers. Two reference IRETs were used to check their stability and level of agreement between calibration results at different institutes and against different blackbody cavities. Measurements were performed with two IRETs, at the NPL in one cavity and at the LMK in four different cavities. The comparison was initiated to solve the problem of assuring proper traceability for IRETs and to present the solution to their users.

show abstract

Accuracy of aural infrared temperature device

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

IR ear thermometers: what do they measure and how do they comply with the EU technical regulation?

IR ear thermometers: what do they measure and how do they comply with the EU technical regulation?

Quasi-invariant measures on non-Archimedean semigroups of loops

Bilateral comparison of blackbody cavities for calibration of infrared ear thermometers between NPL and FE/LMK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About