Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21029528›Full record

ArticleEmerging infectious diseases2010

Comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems and self-report for mass fever screening.

An V Nguyen, Nicole J Cohen, Harvey Lipman, Clive M Brown, Noelle Angelique Molinari, William L Jackson, Hannah Kirking, Paige Szymanowski, Todd W Wilson, Bisan A Salhi and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging infectious diseases, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. An Overview of Thermal Infrared Imaging-Based Screenings during Pandemic Emergencies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

An V NguyenCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Nicole J Cohen
Harvey Lipman
Clive M Brown
Noelle Angelique Molinari
William L Jackson
Hannah Kirking
Paige Szymanowski
Todd W Wilson
Bisan A Salhi
Rebecca R Roberts
David W Stryker
Daniel B Fishbein
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists · USCook County Health and Hospitals System · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USEmory University · USPresbyterian Healthcare Services · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite limited evidence regarding their utility, infrared thermal detection systems (ITDS) are increasingly being used for mass fever detection. We compared temperature measurements for 3 ITDS (FLIR ThermoVision A20M [FLIR Systems Inc., Boston, MA, USA], OptoTherm Thermoscreen [OptoTherm Thermal Imaging Systems and Infrared Cameras Inc., Sewickley, PA, USA], and Wahl Fever Alert Imager HSI2000S [Wahl Instruments Inc., Asheville, NC, USA]) with oral temperatures (≥ 100 °F = confirmed fever) and self-reported fever. Of 2,873 patients enrolled, 476 (16.6%) reported a fever, and 64 (2.2%) had a confirmed fever. Self-reported fever had a sensitivity of 75.0%, specificity 84.7%, and positive predictive value 10.1%. At optimal cutoff values for detecting fever, temperature measurements by OptoTherm and FLIR had greater sensitivity (91.0% and 90.0%, respectively) and specificity (86.0% and 80.0%, respectively) than did self-reports. Correlations between ITDS and oral temperatures were similar for OptoTherm (ρ = 0.43) and FLIR (ρ = 0.42) but significantly lower for Wahl (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001). When compared with oral temperatures, 2 systems (OptoTherm and FLIR) were reasonably accurate for detecting fever and predicted fever better than self-reports.

Indexed as

Infrared RaysAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFeverHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSkin TemperatureThermometersYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21029528
PMCPMC3294528
OpenAlexW2114952204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.