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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Scientific reports 2021-11, Vol.11 (1), p.22079-22079, Article 22079
Main Authors: Sullivan, Stacey J. L., Rinaldi, Jean E., Hariharan, Prasanna, Casamento, Jon P., Baek, Seungchul, Seay, Nathanael, Vesnovsky, Oleg, Topoleski, L. D. Timmie
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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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