镓铟锡合金体温计临床应用效果分析  

Analysis on Clinical Application Effect of Gallium Indium Tin Alloy Thermometer

作　　者：康利红[1] 岳天洋 Kang Lihong;Yue Tianyang(不详;Department of Infectious Diseases,Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University,Beiiing 100053,China)

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学宣武医院感染性疾病科,北京市100053

出　　处：《中国病案》2024年第8期94-96,共3页Chinese Medical Record

摘　　要：目的比较镓铟锡合金体温计和汞柱式体温计两种体温计在临床中的测量效果。方法在2023年1月1日-2023年1月31日随机选取334例就诊患者为研究对象,同时使用镓铟锡合金体温计(观察组)和汞柱式体温计(对照组)测量腋下体温,比较两种材质体温计测量结果进行统计分析。结果依据数据统计分析,观察组与对照组分别对比测量3min、5min、10min不同时段结果,观察组结果分别为:36.50±18.26、36.53±18.26、37.34±1.01,对照组结果分别为:36.50±18.26、36.53±18.26、37.27±1.90,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)测量结果无差异。观察组与对照组对比不同体温区间(正常、低热、中热、高热)两组体温计测量结果,观察组结果分别为:36.48±0.45、37.63±0.23、38.44±0.25、39.45±0.24,对照组结果分别为:36.50±0.44、37.67±0.21、38.45±0.25、39.48±0.25,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)测量结果无差异。观察组与对照组对比不同室外温度(-4℃、-3℃、-2℃、-1℃、1℃、2℃)两组体温计测量结果,观察组结果分别为:37.31±1.06、37.40±1.02、37.17±0.99、37.61±0.90、37.41±1.03、37.39±1.01,对照组结果分别为:37.32±1.05、37.40±1.03、37.19±0.97、37.65±0.92、37.43±1.00、37.43±0.99,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)测量结果无差异。结论通过对668份体温单的数据分析,结果表明镓铟锡合金体温计的测量结果与汞柱式体温计测量结果一致,可有效替代汞柱式体温计应用于临床使用。Objective To compare the measurement effects of gallium indium tin alloy thermometer and mercury column thermometer in clinical practice.Methods From January 1st,2023 to January 31st,2023,334 patients who visited the hospital were randomly selected as the study subjects.Each patient was measured at different environmental temperatures and temperature ranges using a gallium indium tin alloy thermometer(observation group)and a mercury column thermometer(control group)to measure axillary body temperature.The results were compared and statistically analyzed between the two materials of thermometers.Results According to data statistical analysis,the observation group and the control group were compared and measured at different time periods of 3minutes,5 minutes,and 10 minutes,respectively.The results of the observation group were 36.50±18.26,36.53±18.26,and 37.34±1.01,while the results of the control group were 36.50±18.26,36.53±18.26,and 37.27±1.90,with no statistically significant difference(P>0.05).The measurement results showed no difference.The observation group and the control group were compared in different temperature ranges(normal,low fever,moderate fever,high fever)using two thermometers.The results of the observation group were 36.48±0.45,37.63±0.23,38.44±0.25,and 39.45±0.24,respectively,while the results of the control group were 36.50±0.44,37.67±0.21,38.45±0.25,and 39.48±0.25,respectively.There was no statistically significant difference(P>0.05)in the measurement results.The observation group and the control group were compared for different outdoor temperatures(-4℃,-3℃,-2℃,-1℃,1℃,2℃).The results of the observation group were 37.31±1.06,37.40±1.02,37.17±0.99,37.61±0.90,37.41±1.03,37.39±1.01,respectively.The results of the control group were 37.32±1.05,37.40±1.03,37.19±0.97,37.65±0.92,37.43±1.00,37.43±0.99,with no statistically significant difference(P>0.05).The measurement results showed no significant difference.Conclusions Through data analysis of 668 thermometers

关 键 词：镓铟锡合金体温计 汞柱式体温计 体温单 分析 

分 类 号：R197.39[医药卫生—卫生事业管理]