Abstract
Importance Skin temperature assessment is essential for the initial diagnosis of cellulitis and monitoring treatment response. Currently, this is subjective and can contribute to overdiagnosis. Objective To characterise skin temperature changes over time in cellulitis and compare two more objective measurement approaches, a thermal imaging camera (TIC) and a non-contact infrared thermometer (NCIT). Design A methods comparison study nested within a prospective cohort. We measured limb temperatures daily for four days using a TIC and two NCITs (2-4 measurements/time points). Setting Two acute hospitals in the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Participants Adults (age ≥18 years) diagnosed with lower limb cellulitis who attended hospital for antibiotic treatment. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) We used linear mixed-effects models to quantify changes in temperature over time and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to assess reliability. We compared temperature measurements between devices using Lin's concordance coefficients and Bland-Altman plots with estimated 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Results 202 patients were included: 95% white ethnicity. The affected limb remained hotter than the unaffected limb across all days. Baseline affected limb temperatures varied between 33.1-36.9°C and limb temperature differences between 2.4-3.4°C, depending on the device. All devices showed significant reductions in affected limb temperature per day, with the largest decrease for the TIC (-0.34°C per day, 95%CI -0.48 to -0.19, P<0.001). Only the TIC and NCIT-1 showed significant reductions in limb temperature difference per day. All devices had excellent reliability (ICCs ≥0.98). The TIC recorded, on average, affected limb temperatures that were lower than NCIT-1 and NCIT-2, by -2.52°C (95% LOA -5.47 to 0.43) and -4.67°C (95% LOA -6.53 to -2.82), respectively. The largest mean differences and the lowest Lin's concordance coefficient were observed between the TIC and NCIT-2. The NCIT-2 also demonstrated evidence of proportional bias. Conclusions and Relevance NCIT-2's poorer performance suggests different NCITs cannot be used interchangeably. Neither the TIC nor NCIT-1 were clearly superior. More advanced analyses of thermal images could prove helpful. Future research should confirm our findings in different skin tones and aim to determine the clinical utility of potential earlier diagnosis or indications of therapeutic failure that thermal imaging might offer.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
ELAC is funded by a NIHR Doctoral Fellowship (NIHR300952). ASW is supported by the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infection in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) (NIHR200915). GH is supported by the NIHR Healthtech Research Centre in Community Healthcare The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The East of Scotland Research Ethics Service, Research Ethics Committee gave ethical approval for this work (21/ES/0048). All participants provided written informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.