PEDIATRICS Vol. 87 No. 3 March 1991, pp. 415-416
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KENNEY, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by RIBBECK, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by KENNEY, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by RIBBECK, B. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

25% "Error Rate" in Ear Temperature Sensing Device

RICHARD D. KENNEY MD1, JAMES D. FORTENBERRY MD1, S. SUZETTE SURRATT MD1, and BETH M. RIBBECK MS1

1 Department of Pediatrics and Medical Education, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina 28232

In Reply.—

We thank Freed and Fraley for their helpful comments as based on a different manner of data presentation. We agree that reporting standard deviations would have been more informative than reporting confidence intervals (standard error of the mean). However, the following frequency table of absolute value of the differences between the two devices demonstrates that 75% of tympanic membrane thermometer readings were within 0.5°C of

[See table in the PDF file]

glass-mercury thermometer readings and more than 95% are within 1°C.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?