Extensive research has been devoted to developing methods for assessing core body temperature, and to determine which method is most accurate. A number of wireless dermal thermometers for home use are presently available, but their relation to core body temperature and suitability for use in clinical research has hitherto not been assessed. The current study aimed to evaluate such thermometers by comparing them to the results of a rectal thermometer. Four wireless dermal thermometers for home use (FeverSmart, iThermonitor, Quest Temp Sitter, and Thermochron iButton) were applied to 15 patients during 24 h, and rectal temperature was measured at four occasions. Pearson correlation revealed moderate correlation for the Feversmart (r = 0.75), iThermonitor (r = 0.79), and Thermochron iButton (r = 0.71) systems. The Quest Temp Sitter system malfunctioned repeatedly, and the correlation (r = 0.29) for this method should therefore be assessed with caution. All dermal thermometers rendered lower average temperatures than Terumo c405 (Feversmart -0.70 ± 0.65 °C; iThermonitor -0.77 ± 0.53 °C, Quest Temp Sitter -1.18 ± 0.66 °C, and Thermochron iButton -0.87 ± 0.65 °C). Sensitivity of the dermal thermometers for detecting core temperatures ≥38.0 °C was low, ranging from 0.33 to 0.6, but improved to 0.60 to 0.80 after adjusting temperatures by the methods' average deviation from rectal temperature. The results from the dermal thermometers tested here showed an insufficient correlation to core temperature to be used for core temperature monitoring in clinical research and practice. Unfortunately, other options for non-invasive temperature measurements are few. The two thermometers with the least unsatisfactory performance profile in our evaluations were the Feversmart and iThermonitor systems.
Keywords: Body temperature elevation; fever; methodology; thermometer.