↓ Skip to main content

Emergency department rectal temperatures in over 10 years: A retrospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Medicine, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Emergency department rectal temperatures in over 10 years: A retrospective observational study
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2013.02.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Fever in patients can provide an important clue to the etiology of a patient's symptoms. Non-invasive temperature sites (oral, axillary, temporal) may be insensitive due to a variety of factors. This has not been well studied in adult emergency department patients. To determine whether emergency department triage temperatures detected fever adequately when compared to a rectal temperature. A retrospective chart review was made of 27 130 adult patients in a high volume, urban emergency department over an eight-year period who received first a non-rectal triage temperature and then a subsequent rectal temperature. The mean difference in temperatures between the initial temperature and the rectal temperature was 1.3 °F (P<0.001), with 25.9% of the patients having higher rectal temperatures ≥2 °F, and 5.0% having higher rectal temperatures ≥4 °F. The mean difference among the patients who received oral, axillary, and temporal temperatures was 1.2 °F (P<0.001), 1.8 °F (P<0.001), and 1.2 °F (P<0.001) respectively. About 18.1% of the patients were initially afebrile and found to be febrile by rectal temperature, with an average difference of 2.5 °F (P<0.001). These patients had a higher rate of admission (61.4%, P<0.005), and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for a higher level of care, such as an intensive care unit, when compared with the full cohort (12.5% vs. 5.8%, P<0.005). There are significant differences between rectal temperatures and non-invasive triage temperatures in this emergency department cohort. In almost one in five patients, fever was missed by triage temperature.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 50%
Researcher 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Sports and Recreations 1 10%
Engineering 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2022.
All research outputs
#10,498,411
of 32,192,432 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Medicine
#92
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,209
of 332,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Medicine
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,192,432 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,833 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.