Abstract
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.
Highlights
Despite limited evidence regarding their utility, infrared thermal detection systems (ITDS) are increasingly being used for mass fever detection
Of 6 devices submitted to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 3 met the above criteria and were selected for testing: the FLIR ThermoVision A20M (FLIR Systems Inc., Boston, MA, USA), the OptoTherm Thermoscreen (OptoTherm Thermal Imaging Systems and Infrared Cameras Inc., Sewickley, PA, USA), and the Wahl Fever Alert Imager HSI2000S (Wahl Instruments Inc., Asheville, NC, USA)
Correlations of 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
Summary
Despite limited evidence regarding their utility, infrared thermal detection systems (ITDS) are increasingly being used for mass fever detection. When compared with oral temperatures, 2 systems (OptoTherm and FLIR) were reasonably accurate for detecting fever and predicted fever better than self-reports. Because fever is a common indicator of many infectious diseases, the rapid identification of fever is a major component of screening efforts Such screening was used by many countries during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003 and the influenza A pandemic (H1N1) 2009 outbreak [2,3,5,6,7,8]. Infrared thermal detection systems (ITDS) offer a potentially useful alternative to contact thermometry This technology was used for fever screening at hospitals, airports, and other mass transit sites during the severe acute re-. ITDS appeared to enable early detection of febrile persons entering healthcare facilities, where the undetected introduction of communicable diseases can lead to outbreaks among patients and staff [5,16,17,18]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
