Evaluation of non-invasive sensors for monitoring core temperature
An erratum to this article was published (J Clin Monit Comput, Dec 2025 ↗)
Authors' conclusion
Neither the ZHF nor DS non-invasive probes provided sufficient accuracy or precision to guide clinical decisions in the ICU.
Study context
- Population
- Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing hypothermic temperature control358 observations
- Participants
- 35 patients
- Exposure
- Zero-heat flux (ZHF) and dual sensor (DS) non-invasive temperature probes vs direct core temperature measurement
- Outcome
- Bias (accuracy) of non-invasive probes vs direct core temperature (Bland-Altman); precision by Lin's concordance coefficient (LCC)
Methodological detailssingle-centre, method comparison (Bland-Altman)
- Single-centre
- Method comparison (Bland-Altman)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Mean bias vs invasive temperature
ZHF
+ 0.98
mean · °C
DS
- 2.19
mean · °C
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | ZHF | DS |
|---|---|---|
| Bias and LCC in hypothermic patients (subgroup) | + 0.28 °C | - 2.52 °C |
| LCC | 0.86 | 0.07 |
Clinical confounders (vasoactive agents, temperature control devices)
- Did not consistently affect bias, accuracy, or precision
Original publication
Evaluation of non-invasive sensors for monitoring core temperature. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 22 March 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →