RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Overlooked bias with thermometer evaluations using quickly retaken temperatures in EHR: applications to axillary, oral, temporal artery, and tympanic thermometry
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.24.20237958
DO 10.1101/2020.11.24.20237958
A1 Harding, Charles
A1 Pompei, Marybeth
A1 Burmistrov, Dmitriy
A1 Pompei, Francesco
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/28/2020.11.24.20237958.abstract
AB Studies related to COVID-19 increasingly use electronic health records (EHR) to obtain large-scale evidence. However, EHR-based research must be performed with care because it can involve new study design problems that are unfamiliar to much of the medical community. Haimovich et al. (2020) sought to inform COVID-19 practice by evaluating temporal artery thermometers (TATs). They retrospectively searched EHR for temperatures measured twice within 15 minutes, including once with a TAT. The TAT often disagreed with reference measurements, so Haimovich et al. concluded TATs perform poorly. Here, we extended Haimovich et al.’s study design to all other major thermometer types using the eICU Collaborative Research Database. We retrospectively identified 80,065 pairs of quickly retaken temperatures from 24,765 adult U.S. critical care patients treated in 2014-2015. We found that oral, tympanic, and axillary thermometers disagreed with reference measurements as much as TATs did. Moreover, all thermometer types showed unprecedentedly worse agreement than observed in research using other study designs: every thermometer type broke ±0.9°F (±0.5°C) limits of clinically acceptable agreement by >2-fold and no type satisfied basic standards for repeatability. A natural explanation for these findings is that clinicians often retook temperatures within minutes because of user or patient errors during measurement, such as probe misplacement or patient movement. This means that quickly retaken EHR measurements do not reflect device accuracy or precision in correct use and, contrary to Haimovich et al.’s conclusions, should not be used to evaluate thermometer performance or revise COVID-19 fever thresholds. Our study provides an illustrative example of unexpected study design problems that can undermine EHR-based research.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have conflicts of interest for this study: This study was funded by Exergen, Corp., a manufacturer of thermometers, including of the temporal artery type. CH receives consulting fees from Exergen, MB is Senior Vice President of Exergen, and FP is CEO of Exergen. The authors have no other conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Exergen, Corp., a thermometer manufacturer. CH received payment from Exergen for work on this research.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicable: The study consists of retrospective analyses of de-identified data that were not collected by the research group.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data used in this study are available online from PhysioNet as part of the eICU Collaborative Research Database, version 2.0. Given our conflicts of interest on this research topic, we have also provided code that can be used to check and replicate all study findings in the interest of transparency. https://physionet.org/content/eicu-crd/2.0/ https://github.com/charlesharding/temp-retake-issues