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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tay, M.R., Low, Y.L., Zhao, X., Cook, A.R., Lee, V.J.
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