Author: Tay, M.R.; Low, Y.L.; Zhao, X.; Cook, A.R.; Lee, V.J.
Title: Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting Cord-id: v1b5yhxo Document date: 2015_8_18
ID: v1b5yhxo
Snippet: 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 a
Document: 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.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- acceptable sensitivity and logistic regression: 1, 2
- acute respiratory syndrome and adequate training: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- acute respiratory syndrome and logistic linear: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
- acute respiratory syndrome and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- acute respiratory syndrome and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- acute respiratory syndrome and long time period: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- acute respiratory syndrome and low efficacy: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
- adequate training and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- adequate training and logistic regression model: 1
- logistic linear and long time period: 1
- logistic regression and long time period: 1, 2
- logistic regression and low efficacy: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- logistic regression model and low efficacy: 1, 2, 3
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date