See the published version of this preprint at BMC Pediatrics.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Haixia Li
Affiliated Hospital 5 to Nantong University (Taizhou People's Hospital)
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1336-2548
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Purposes: The purposes of this review were to compare sensitivity and specificity of the new generation tympanic thermometry under different cutoffs and to give the optimal cutoff. Methods: Articles were derived from a systematic search in PubMed, Web of science, and Embase, and were assessed for internal validity by QUADAS-Ⅱ. The figure of risk of bias was drew by Review Manager 5.3 and data were synthesized by MetaDisc 1.4. Results: Nineteen diagnostic studies, involving 4,639 pediatric patients, were included. The cut-offs varied from 37.0℃ to 38.0℃ among these studies. The cut-off 37.8 was with the highest sROC AUC (0.97) and Youden Index (0.83) and was deemed to be the optimal cutoff. Conclusion: New Generation Tympanic Thermometry is with high diagnostic accuracy in pediatric patients and can be an alternative for rectal measurements.
Keywords
tympanic thermometry, pediatric, rectal, cutoff, Sensitivity, Specificity
Figure 1
.png?maxDims=150x150)
Figure 2
.png?maxDims=150x150)
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Pediatrics.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 23 Apr, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 20 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 12 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 11 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 11 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 06 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 24 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 24 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Mar, 2020
Version 1
Posted 20 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 16 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 12 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 01 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 31 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Jan, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Pediatrics
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Pediatrics.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Haixia Li
Affiliated Hospital 5 to Nantong University (Taizhou People's Hospital)
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1336-2548
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Pediatrics.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 23 Apr, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 20 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 12 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 11 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 11 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 06 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 24 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 24 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Mar, 2020
Version 1
Posted 20 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 16 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 12 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 01 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 31 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Jan, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Pediatrics
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Pediatrics.
Purposes: The purposes of this review were to compare sensitivity and specificity of the new generation tympanic thermometry under different cutoffs and to give the optimal cutoff. Methods: Articles were derived from a systematic search in PubMed, Web of science, and Embase, and were assessed for internal validity by QUADAS-Ⅱ. The figure of risk of bias was drew by Review Manager 5.3 and data were synthesized by MetaDisc 1.4. Results: Nineteen diagnostic studies, involving 4,639 pediatric patients, were included. The cut-offs varied from 37.0℃ to 38.0℃ among these studies. The cut-off 37.8 was with the highest sROC AUC (0.97) and Youden Index (0.83) and was deemed to be the optimal cutoff. Conclusion: New Generation Tympanic Thermometry is with high diagnostic accuracy in pediatric patients and can be an alternative for rectal measurements.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...