Comparison of 3 Infrared Thermal Detection Systems and Self-Report for Mass Fever Screening
Published Date:Nov 2010
Source:Emerg Infect Dis. 16(11):1710-1717.
Aged, 80 And Over
Bioterrorism And Preparedness
Et Al. Comparison Of 3 Infrared Thermal Detection Systems And Self-report For Mass Fever Screening. Emerg Infect Dis [serial On The Internet]. 2010 Nov [date Cited]. Http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1611.100703
Infrared Thermal Detection Systems
Suggested Citation For This Article: Nguyen AV
Description:Despite limited evidence regarding their utility, infrared thermal detection systems (ITDS) are increasingly being used for mass fever detection. We compared temperature measurements for 3 ITDS (FLIR ThermoVision A20M [FLIR Systems Inc., Boston, MA, USA], OptoTherm Thermoscreen [OptoTherm Thermal Imaging Systems and Infrared Cameras Inc., Sewickley, PA, USA], and Wahl Fever Alert Imager HSI2000S [Wahl Instruments Inc., Asheville, NC, USA]) with oral temperatures (≥ 100 °F = confirmed fever) and self-reported fever. Of 2,873 patients enrolled, 476 (16.6%) reported a fever, and 64 (2.2%) had a confirmed fever. Self-reported fever had a sensitivity of 75.0%, specificity 84.7%, and positive predictive value 10.1%. At optimal cutoff values for detecting fever, temperature measurements by OptoTherm and FLIR had greater sensitivity (91.0% and 90.0%, respectively) and specificity (86.0% and 80.0%, respectively) than did self-reports. Correlations between ITDS and oral temperatures were similar for OptoTherm (ρ = 0.43) and FLIR (ρ = 0.42) but significantly lower for Wahl (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001). When compared with oral temperatures, 2 systems (OptoTherm and FLIR) were reasonably accurate for detecting fever and predicted fever better than self-reports.
image/gif image/jpeg image/gif image/jpeg text/plain text/plain
You May Also Like: