About this item:

364 Views | 410 Downloads

Author Notes:

Address for correspondence: Nicole J. Cohen, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Mailstop E03, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA; email: ncohen@cdc.gov

We thank the emergency department staff of Grady Memorial Hospital, John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, and Presbyterian Healthcare Services for collaborating with CDC;

Shannon Bachar, Sena Blumensaadt, Heather Hastings, Jane Keir, Krista Kornylo, Lisa Poray, Efrosini Roland, Michelle Russell, and Evelyn Chris Swager for contributions to data collection;

Daniel Rodriguez for translation of study forms; Francisco Averhoff and Peter Houck for guidance during protocol development; and Nabiha Megateli-Das for editorial contributions.

This article is dedicated to Harvey Lipman, an outstanding scientist and colleague whose substantial contributions to public health research will always be remembered.

Subjects:

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Immunology
  • Infectious Diseases
  • IMMUNOLOGY
  • INFECTIOUS DISEASES
  • ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME
  • EMERGENCY-DEPARTMENT RESPONSE
  • TEMPERATURE-MEASUREMENT
  • BODY-TEMPERATURE
  • FEBRILE PATIENTS
  • SARS
  • THERMOMETRY
  • INFLUENZA
  • SURVEILLANCE
  • STRATEGIES

Comparison of 3 Infrared Thermal Detection Systems and Self-Report for Mass Fever Screening

Show all authors Show less authors

Tools:

Journal Title:

Emerging Infectious Diseases

Volume:

Volume 16, Number 11

Publisher:

, Pages 1710-1717

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

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 Opto-Therm (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.

Copyright information:

Emerging Infectious Diseases is published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a U.S. Government agency. Therefore, materials published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, including text, figures, tables, and photographs are in the public domain and can be reprinted or used without permission with proper citation.

Export to EndNote