Cargando…
Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting
OBJECTIVES: Fever screening systems, such as Infrared Thermal Detection Systems (ITDS), have been used for rapid identification of potential cases during respiratory disease outbreaks for public health management. ITDS detect a difference between the subject and ambient temperature, making deploymen...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7111721/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26296847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.023 |
_version_ | 1783513339338424320 |
---|---|
author | Tay, M.R. Low, Y.L. Zhao, X. Cook, A.R. Lee, V.J. |
author_facet | Tay, M.R. Low, Y.L. Zhao, X. Cook, A.R. Lee, V.J. |
author_sort | Tay, M.R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Fever screening systems, such as Infrared Thermal Detection Systems (ITDS), have been used for rapid identification of potential cases during respiratory disease outbreaks for public health management. ITDS detect a difference between the subject and ambient temperature, making deployment in hot climates more challenging. This study, conducted in Singapore, a tropical city, evaluates the accuracy of three different ITDS for fever detection compared with traditional oral thermometry and self-reporting in a clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a prospective operational evaluation conducted in the Singapore military on all personnel seeking medical care at a high-volume primary healthcare centre over a one week period in February 2014. METHODS: Three ITDS, the STE Infrared Fever Screening System (IFSS), the Omnisense Sentry MKIII and the handheld Quick Shot Infrared Thermoscope HT-F03B, were evaluated. Temperature measurements were taken outside the healthcare centre, under a sheltered walkway and compared to oral temperature. Subjects were asked if they had fever. RESULTS: There were 430 subjects screened, of whom 34 participants (7.9%) had confirmed fever, determined by oral thermometer measurement. The handheld infrared thermoscope had a very low sensitivity (29.4%), but a high specificity (96.8%). The STE ITDS had a moderate sensitivity (44.1%), but a very high specificity (99.1%). Self-reported fevers showed good sensitivity (88.2%) and specificity (93.9%). The sensitivity of the Omnisense ITDS (89.7%) was the highest among the three methods with good specificity (92.0%). CONCLUSION: The new generation Omnisense ITDS displayed a relatively high sensitivity and specificity for fever. Though it has a lower sensitivity, the old generation STE ITDS system showed a very high specificity. Self-reporting of fever was reliable. The handheld thermograph should not be used as a fever-screening tool under tropical conditions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7111721 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71117212020-04-02 Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting Tay, M.R. Low, Y.L. Zhao, X. Cook, A.R. Lee, V.J. Public Health Article OBJECTIVES: Fever screening systems, such as Infrared Thermal Detection Systems (ITDS), have been used for rapid identification of potential cases during respiratory disease outbreaks for public health management. ITDS detect a difference between the subject and ambient temperature, making deployment in hot climates more challenging. This study, conducted in Singapore, a tropical city, evaluates the accuracy of three different ITDS for fever detection compared with traditional oral thermometry and self-reporting in a clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a prospective operational evaluation conducted in the Singapore military on all personnel seeking medical care at a high-volume primary healthcare centre over a one week period in February 2014. METHODS: Three ITDS, the STE Infrared Fever Screening System (IFSS), the Omnisense Sentry MKIII and the handheld Quick Shot Infrared Thermoscope HT-F03B, were evaluated. Temperature measurements were taken outside the healthcare centre, under a sheltered walkway and compared to oral temperature. Subjects were asked if they had fever. RESULTS: There were 430 subjects screened, of whom 34 participants (7.9%) had confirmed fever, determined by oral thermometer measurement. The handheld infrared thermoscope had a very low sensitivity (29.4%), but a high specificity (96.8%). The STE ITDS had a moderate sensitivity (44.1%), but a very high specificity (99.1%). Self-reported fevers showed good sensitivity (88.2%) and specificity (93.9%). The sensitivity of the Omnisense ITDS (89.7%) was the highest among the three methods with good specificity (92.0%). CONCLUSION: The new generation Omnisense ITDS displayed a relatively high sensitivity and specificity for fever. Though it has a lower sensitivity, the old generation STE ITDS system showed a very high specificity. Self-reporting of fever was reliable. The handheld thermograph should not be used as a fever-screening tool under tropical conditions. The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2015-11 2015-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7111721/ /pubmed/26296847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.023 Text en Copyright © 2015 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Tay, M.R. Low, Y.L. Zhao, X. Cook, A.R. Lee, V.J. Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting |
title | Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting |
title_full | Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting |
title_short | Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting |
title_sort | comparison of infrared thermal detection systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7111721/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26296847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.023 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT taymr comparisonofinfraredthermaldetectionsystemsformassfeverscreeninginatropicalhealthcaresetting AT lowyl comparisonofinfraredthermaldetectionsystemsformassfeverscreeninginatropicalhealthcaresetting AT zhaox comparisonofinfraredthermaldetectionsystemsformassfeverscreeninginatropicalhealthcaresetting AT cookar comparisonofinfraredthermaldetectionsystemsformassfeverscreeninginatropicalhealthcaresetting AT leevj comparisonofinfraredthermaldetectionsystemsformassfeverscreeninginatropicalhealthcaresetting |