Loading…
Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers
Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic as a temperature-measurement tool for screening and isolating patients in healthcare settings, travelers at ports of entry, and the general public. To understand the accuracy of NCITs, a clinical study was c...
Saved in:
Published in: | Scientific reports 2021-11, Vol.11 (1), p.22079-22079, Article 22079 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-8f3b46571a36a6a96a1624f53c41a62e9e3adaacfe9af6c6cd76ca3fdeb7f4713 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-8f3b46571a36a6a96a1624f53c41a62e9e3adaacfe9af6c6cd76ca3fdeb7f4713 |
container_end_page | 22079 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 22079 |
container_title | Scientific reports |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | Sullivan, Stacey J. L. Rinaldi, Jean E. Hariharan, Prasanna Casamento, Jon P. Baek, Seungchul Seay, Nathanael Vesnovsky, Oleg Topoleski, L. D. Timmie |
description | Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic as a temperature-measurement tool for screening and isolating patients in healthcare settings, travelers at ports of entry, and the general public. To understand the accuracy of NCITs, a clinical study was conducted with 1113 adult subjects using six different commercially available NCIT models. A total of 60 NCITs were tested with 10 units for each model. The NCIT-measured temperature was compared with the oral temperature obtained using a reference oral thermometer. The mean difference between the reference thermometer and NCIT measurement (clinical bias) was different for each NCIT model. The clinical bias ranged from just under − 0.9 °C (under-reporting) to just over 0.2 °C (over-reporting). The individual differences ranged from − 3 to + 2 °C in extreme cases, with the majority of the differences between − 2 and + 1 °C. Depending upon the NCIT model, 48% to 88% of the individual temperature measurements were outside the labeled accuracy stated by the manufacturers. The sensitivity of the NCIT models for detecting subject’s temperature above 38 °C ranged from 0 to 0.69. Overall, our results indicate that some NCIT devices may not be consistently accurate enough to determine if subject’s temperature exceeds a specific threshold of 38 °C. Model-to-model variability and individual model accuracy in the displayed temperature were found to be outside of acceptable limits. Accuracy and credibility of the NCITs should be thoroughly evaluated before using them as an effective screening tool. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41598-021-99300-1 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_d881df77555a421cae4839ad0df449b7</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d881df77555a421cae4839ad0df449b7</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2597485031</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-8f3b46571a36a6a96a1624f53c41a62e9e3adaacfe9af6c6cd76ca3fdeb7f4713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtr3DAURk1paEKSP9BFMXTTjVu9H5tCGfoIBLpJ1uKOdDXxYEupZAf67-OJ0zTpotpI6B4dXelrmreUfKSEm09VUGlNRxjtrOWEdPRVc8KIkB3jjL1-tj5uzmvdk2VIZgW1b5pjLrQSgpuTxmyGPvUehhbvYJhh6nNqc2xTTp3PaQI_tX2KBQqGdrrBMuYRJyz1rDmKMFQ8f5xPm-tvX682P7rLn98vNl8uOy8FmToT-VYoqSlwBQqsAqqYiJJ7QUExtMghAPiIFqLyygetPPAYcKuj0JSfNherN2TYu9vSj1B-uwy9e9jIZeegTL0f0AVjaIhaSylBMOoBheEWAglRCLvVi-vz6rqdtyMGj2kqMLyQvqyk_sbt8p0z0igqxSL48Cgo-deMdXJjXz0OAyTMc3VMWi2MJPzQ9_t_0H2eS1q-6kApqpWkfKHYSvmSay0Yn5qhxB1ydmvObsnZPeTsDup3z5_xdORPqgvAV6AupbTD8vfu_2jvARO9s6g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2596176513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Springer Nature - nature.com Journals - Fully Open Access</source><creator>Sullivan, Stacey J. L. ; Rinaldi, Jean E. ; Hariharan, Prasanna ; Casamento, Jon P. ; Baek, Seungchul ; Seay, Nathanael ; Vesnovsky, Oleg ; Topoleski, L. D. Timmie</creator><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Stacey J. L. ; Rinaldi, Jean E. ; Hariharan, Prasanna ; Casamento, Jon P. ; Baek, Seungchul ; Seay, Nathanael ; Vesnovsky, Oleg ; Topoleski, L. D. Timmie</creatorcontrib><description>Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic as a temperature-measurement tool for screening and isolating patients in healthcare settings, travelers at ports of entry, and the general public. To understand the accuracy of NCITs, a clinical study was conducted with 1113 adult subjects using six different commercially available NCIT models. A total of 60 NCITs were tested with 10 units for each model. The NCIT-measured temperature was compared with the oral temperature obtained using a reference oral thermometer. The mean difference between the reference thermometer and NCIT measurement (clinical bias) was different for each NCIT model. The clinical bias ranged from just under − 0.9 °C (under-reporting) to just over 0.2 °C (over-reporting). The individual differences ranged from − 3 to + 2 °C in extreme cases, with the majority of the differences between − 2 and + 1 °C. Depending upon the NCIT model, 48% to 88% of the individual temperature measurements were outside the labeled accuracy stated by the manufacturers. The sensitivity of the NCIT models for detecting subject’s temperature above 38 °C ranged from 0 to 0.69. Overall, our results indicate that some NCIT devices may not be consistently accurate enough to determine if subject’s temperature exceeds a specific threshold of 38 °C. Model-to-model variability and individual model accuracy in the displayed temperature were found to be outside of acceptable limits. Accuracy and credibility of the NCITs should be thoroughly evaluated before using them as an effective screening tool.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99300-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34764438</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>639/166/985 ; 639/166/988 ; 692/1807/1490 ; Accuracy ; Adult ; Body Temperature ; COVID-19 ; COVID-19 - diagnosis ; Female ; Fever - diagnosis ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Humans ; Infrared Rays ; Male ; multidisciplinary ; Pandemics ; Science ; Science (multidisciplinary) ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Temperature measurement ; Thermometers ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Scientific reports, 2021-11, Vol.11 (1), p.22079-22079, Article 22079</ispartof><rights>This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s).</rights><rights>This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-8f3b46571a36a6a96a1624f53c41a62e9e3adaacfe9af6c6cd76ca3fdeb7f4713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-8f3b46571a36a6a96a1624f53c41a62e9e3adaacfe9af6c6cd76ca3fdeb7f4713</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2596176513/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2596176513?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,25733,27903,27904,36991,36992,44569,53769,53771,74872</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34764438$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Stacey J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rinaldi, Jean E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hariharan, Prasanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casamento, Jon P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baek, Seungchul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seay, Nathanael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vesnovsky, Oleg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Topoleski, L. D. Timmie</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers</title><title>Scientific reports</title><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><description>Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic as a temperature-measurement tool for screening and isolating patients in healthcare settings, travelers at ports of entry, and the general public. To understand the accuracy of NCITs, a clinical study was conducted with 1113 adult subjects using six different commercially available NCIT models. A total of 60 NCITs were tested with 10 units for each model. The NCIT-measured temperature was compared with the oral temperature obtained using a reference oral thermometer. The mean difference between the reference thermometer and NCIT measurement (clinical bias) was different for each NCIT model. The clinical bias ranged from just under − 0.9 °C (under-reporting) to just over 0.2 °C (over-reporting). The individual differences ranged from − 3 to + 2 °C in extreme cases, with the majority of the differences between − 2 and + 1 °C. Depending upon the NCIT model, 48% to 88% of the individual temperature measurements were outside the labeled accuracy stated by the manufacturers. The sensitivity of the NCIT models for detecting subject’s temperature above 38 °C ranged from 0 to 0.69. Overall, our results indicate that some NCIT devices may not be consistently accurate enough to determine if subject’s temperature exceeds a specific threshold of 38 °C. Model-to-model variability and individual model accuracy in the displayed temperature were found to be outside of acceptable limits. Accuracy and credibility of the NCITs should be thoroughly evaluated before using them as an effective screening tool.</description><subject>639/166/985</subject><subject>639/166/988</subject><subject>692/1807/1490</subject><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Body Temperature</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>COVID-19 - diagnosis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fever - diagnosis</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infrared Rays</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>Pandemics</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science (multidisciplinary)</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Temperature measurement</subject><subject>Thermometers</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>2045-2322</issn><issn>2045-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtr3DAURk1paEKSP9BFMXTTjVu9H5tCGfoIBLpJ1uKOdDXxYEupZAf67-OJ0zTpotpI6B4dXelrmreUfKSEm09VUGlNRxjtrOWEdPRVc8KIkB3jjL1-tj5uzmvdk2VIZgW1b5pjLrQSgpuTxmyGPvUehhbvYJhh6nNqc2xTTp3PaQI_tX2KBQqGdrrBMuYRJyz1rDmKMFQ8f5xPm-tvX682P7rLn98vNl8uOy8FmToT-VYoqSlwBQqsAqqYiJJ7QUExtMghAPiIFqLyygetPPAYcKuj0JSfNherN2TYu9vSj1B-uwy9e9jIZeegTL0f0AVjaIhaSylBMOoBheEWAglRCLvVi-vz6rqdtyMGj2kqMLyQvqyk_sbt8p0z0igqxSL48Cgo-deMdXJjXz0OAyTMc3VMWi2MJPzQ9_t_0H2eS1q-6kApqpWkfKHYSvmSay0Yn5qhxB1ydmvObsnZPeTsDup3z5_xdORPqgvAV6AupbTD8vfu_2jvARO9s6g</recordid><startdate>20211111</startdate><enddate>20211111</enddate><creator>Sullivan, Stacey J. L.</creator><creator>Rinaldi, Jean E.</creator><creator>Hariharan, Prasanna</creator><creator>Casamento, Jon P.</creator><creator>Baek, Seungchul</creator><creator>Seay, Nathanael</creator><creator>Vesnovsky, Oleg</creator><creator>Topoleski, L. D. Timmie</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><general>Nature Portfolio</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211111</creationdate><title>Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers</title><author>Sullivan, Stacey J. L. ; Rinaldi, Jean E. ; Hariharan, Prasanna ; Casamento, Jon P. ; Baek, Seungchul ; Seay, Nathanael ; Vesnovsky, Oleg ; Topoleski, L. D. Timmie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-8f3b46571a36a6a96a1624f53c41a62e9e3adaacfe9af6c6cd76ca3fdeb7f4713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>639/166/985</topic><topic>639/166/988</topic><topic>692/1807/1490</topic><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Body Temperature</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>COVID-19 - diagnosis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fever - diagnosis</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infrared Rays</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>Pandemics</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science (multidisciplinary)</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Temperature measurement</topic><topic>Thermometers</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Stacey J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rinaldi, Jean E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hariharan, Prasanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casamento, Jon P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baek, Seungchul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seay, Nathanael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vesnovsky, Oleg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Topoleski, L. D. Timmie</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sullivan, Stacey J. L.</au><au>Rinaldi, Jean E.</au><au>Hariharan, Prasanna</au><au>Casamento, Jon P.</au><au>Baek, Seungchul</au><au>Seay, Nathanael</au><au>Vesnovsky, Oleg</au><au>Topoleski, L. D. Timmie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers</atitle><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle><stitle>Sci Rep</stitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><date>2021-11-11</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>22079</spage><epage>22079</epage><pages>22079-22079</pages><artnum>22079</artnum><issn>2045-2322</issn><eissn>2045-2322</eissn><abstract>Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic as a temperature-measurement tool for screening and isolating patients in healthcare settings, travelers at ports of entry, and the general public. To understand the accuracy of NCITs, a clinical study was conducted with 1113 adult subjects using six different commercially available NCIT models. A total of 60 NCITs were tested with 10 units for each model. The NCIT-measured temperature was compared with the oral temperature obtained using a reference oral thermometer. The mean difference between the reference thermometer and NCIT measurement (clinical bias) was different for each NCIT model. The clinical bias ranged from just under − 0.9 °C (under-reporting) to just over 0.2 °C (over-reporting). The individual differences ranged from − 3 to + 2 °C in extreme cases, with the majority of the differences between − 2 and + 1 °C. Depending upon the NCIT model, 48% to 88% of the individual temperature measurements were outside the labeled accuracy stated by the manufacturers. The sensitivity of the NCIT models for detecting subject’s temperature above 38 °C ranged from 0 to 0.69. Overall, our results indicate that some NCIT devices may not be consistently accurate enough to determine if subject’s temperature exceeds a specific threshold of 38 °C. Model-to-model variability and individual model accuracy in the displayed temperature were found to be outside of acceptable limits. Accuracy and credibility of the NCITs should be thoroughly evaluated before using them as an effective screening tool.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>34764438</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41598-021-99300-1</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2045-2322 |
ispartof | Scientific reports, 2021-11, Vol.11 (1), p.22079-22079, Article 22079 |
issn | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_d881df77555a421cae4839ad0df449b7 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Springer Nature - nature.com Journals - Fully Open Access |
subjects | 639/166/985 639/166/988 692/1807/1490 Accuracy Adult Body Temperature COVID-19 COVID-19 - diagnosis Female Fever - diagnosis Humanities and Social Sciences Humans Infrared Rays Male multidisciplinary Pandemics Science Science (multidisciplinary) Sensitivity and Specificity Temperature measurement Thermometers Young Adult |
title | Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T23%3A37%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20evaluation%20of%20non-contact%20infrared%20thermometers&rft.jtitle=Scientific%20reports&rft.au=Sullivan,%20Stacey%20J.%20L.&rft.date=2021-11-11&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=22079&rft.epage=22079&rft.pages=22079-22079&rft.artnum=22079&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41598-021-99300-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2597485031%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-8f3b46571a36a6a96a1624f53c41a62e9e3adaacfe9af6c6cd76ca3fdeb7f4713%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2596176513&rft_id=info:pmid/34764438&rfr_iscdi=true |