Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
OBJECTIVE:: To compare the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a thermistor thermometer (thermistor) and two different infrared thermometers (one designed to measure tympanic temperature and one for skin temperature).
DESIGN:: Reliability and validity were evaluated by making two separate measurements from the skin at identical spots of each hand, forearm, shoulder, thigh, shin, and foot in 17 healthy subjects. Intramuscular temperature was recorded at the hand and shin sites. Test-retest reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation for each instrument. Pearson correlation assessed the relationship between the skin and intramuscular temperatures at the hand and shin sites (validity). Each instrument's ability to measure temperature change (responsiveness) was assessed by measuring skin temperatures serially from 17 limbs of ten patients with complex regional pain syndrome undergoing intravenous regional sympathetic blockade. Responsiveness index values were calculated.
RESULTS:: Reliability was strong and similar for each device (intraclass correlation: thermistor = 0.96, tympanic = 0.96, skin = 0.97), as was validity (r: thermistor = 0.90, tympanic = 0.92, skin = 0.92). Responsiveness was marginally better for the infrared skin device (responsiveness index: skin = 4.2, tympanic = 3.6, thermistor = 3.6).
CONCLUSIONS:: For the purposes of clinical electrodiagnostic laboratory and other physiatry applications, the performance of the infrared thermometers is equal to or superior to that of the traditionally used thermistor. All three devices are highly reliable and valid, whereas the infrared skin device is slightly more responsive. Infrared thermometers have the advantage of being quicker to operate and more portable