Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers

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 st...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Stacey J. L. Sullivan, Jean E. Rinaldi, Prasanna Hariharan, Jon P. Casamento, Seungchul Baek, Nathanael Seay, Oleg Vesnovsky, L. D. Timmie Topoleski
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/d881df77555a421cae4839ad0df449b7
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:d881df77555a421cae4839ad0df449b7
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:d881df77555a421cae4839ad0df449b72021-11-14T12:19:44ZClinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers10.1038/s41598-021-99300-12045-2322https://doaj.org/article/d881df77555a421cae4839ad0df449b72021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99300-1https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract 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.Stacey J. L. SullivanJean E. RinaldiPrasanna HariharanJon P. CasamentoSeungchul BaekNathanael SeayOleg VesnovskyL. D. Timmie TopoleskiNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Stacey J. L. Sullivan Jean E. Rinaldi Prasanna Hariharan Jon P. Casamento Seungchul Baek Nathanael Seay Oleg Vesnovsky L. D. Timmie Topoleski Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers
description	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.
format	article
author	Stacey J. L. Sullivan Jean E. Rinaldi Prasanna Hariharan Jon P. Casamento Seungchul Baek Nathanael Seay Oleg Vesnovsky L. D. Timmie Topoleski
author_facet	Stacey J. L. Sullivan Jean E. Rinaldi Prasanna Hariharan Jon P. Casamento Seungchul Baek Nathanael Seay Oleg Vesnovsky L. D. Timmie Topoleski
author_sort	Stacey J. L. Sullivan
title	Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers
title_short	Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers
title_full	Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers
title_fullStr	Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers
title_full_unstemmed	Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers
title_sort	clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/d881df77555a421cae4839ad0df449b7
work_keys_str_mv	AT staceyjlsullivan clinicalevaluationofnoncontactinfraredthermometers AT jeanerinaldi clinicalevaluationofnoncontactinfraredthermometers AT prasannahariharan clinicalevaluationofnoncontactinfraredthermometers AT jonpcasamento clinicalevaluationofnoncontactinfraredthermometers AT seungchulbaek clinicalevaluationofnoncontactinfraredthermometers AT nathanaelseay clinicalevaluationofnoncontactinfraredthermometers AT olegvesnovsky clinicalevaluationofnoncontactinfraredthermometers AT ldtimmietopoleski clinicalevaluationofnoncontactinfraredthermometers
_version_	1718429317602476032

Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers

Ejemplares similares