Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-1 (of 1 Records) |
Query Trace: Wilson TW[original query] |
---|
Comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems and self-report for mass fever screening
Nguyen AV , Cohen NJ , Lipman H , Brown CM , Molinari NA , Jackson WL , Kirking H , Szymanowski P , Wilson TW , Salhi BA , Roberts RR , Stryker DW , Fishbein DB . Emerg Infect Dis 2010 16 (11) 1710-7 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 degrees 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 (rho = 0.43) and FLIR (rho = 0.42) but significantly lower for Wahl (rho = 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. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure