Adam Bennett

Article critique
For this article critique, the article used is Temperature Measurement in Pediatrics: A
Comparison of the Rectal Method Versus the Temporal Artery Method. The source of this
article is the Journal of Pediatric Nursing. This is a peer reviewed article and this information
can be found on the journals web page. The authors of this article include; Jessica Bahorski,
Terri Repasky, Donna Ranner, Ally Fields, Michelle Jackson, Lucy Moultry, Karen Pierce, and
Mary Sandell. All of the authors have at least a bachelor or masters degree in nursing and many
of the authors also have obtained a specialty. The main subject of the article was to determine
whether a rectal or temporal temperature was more appropriate and accurate in taking the
temperature of pediatric patients. The literature review did support a need for the study. Many
of the studies seen in the literature review had a low level of evidence and were not done within
the past 5 years. This means that more research is needed on this subject. The purpose of the
study is found on page 243 and states to determine if there is a difference between temperature
readings obtained using two different electronic temperature devices: one measuring temporal
artery temperature (TAT) and one measuring rectal temperature (RT) (Bahorski, 2012) The
problem that is being investigated in this article is so which temperature method is most accurate
to the core temperature of the patient. The population consisted of 47 patients between the ages
of 3 and 36 months. These patients were in the ED, ICU or PICU. The exclusion criteria that
the participants needed to meet includes; not having abnormal anomalies that would not allow a
rectal or temporal temp to be taken, hemodynamic instability, seizures, aggressive
thermoregulation therapy, and profuse diarrhea.(Bahorski, 2012) This criteria is considered very
tight restrictions on the population. The design for this study is a comparative, single-group
study. The design for this study is not appropriate because of the amount of participants. There
should be more participant in this study if the authors would use this study. Instead they should
have used a comparative study. This would have utilized the small population size. The level of
evidence for this article is a six. This is due to the single comparison group design of the
experiment. This is based on the EBM method. The statistical analysis used is the t-test. The
level of measure and statistical analysis match because the t-test and an interval level of
measurement are compatible and it is appropriate to use for this study. The t-test is being used to
compare rectal and arterial temperature at an interval level. T The results from this article show
that there was no statistical significance in temperature when comparing the temporal and rectal
temperatures. These results are stated clearly in the results section of the article. The identified
question was to determine if there is a difference between temperature readings obtained using
two different electronic temperature devices: one measuring temporal artery temperature (TAT)
and one measuring rectal temperature (RT). The results showed that there was not statistical
significance between using a rectal and temporal thermometer. The threats to validity for this
assignment include selection bias and instrumentation change. The selection bias is due to the
exclusion criteria. The criteria restricted the population too much. This was due to the age limit
set on the sample. The age limit set at three years is not an appropriate representation of all
pediatric patients. Instrumentation was also a threat to validity due to the fact that the same
thermometer was not used on all of the patients. The findings from this article are not consistent
with other articles. The others found that a rectal temperature is more accurate than a temporal
thermometer. This article found no statistical significance. These results mean that there is not
enough evidence generated from this study to change modern medicine. Future studies needs to
be done. This is not ready to be put into clinical practice. More research needs to be done.