ArticlePloS one2021
Effectiveness of thermal screening in detection of COVID-19 among truck drivers at Mutukula Land Point of Entry, Uganda.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public perspectives on COVID-19 public health and social measures in Japan and the United Kingdom: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of Point of Entry Health Screening Measures among Travelers in the Detection and Containment of the International Spread of COVID-19: A Review of the Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- COVID-19 transmission in dental practice during the pandemic: A questionnaire-based survey in private dental clinics in Japan.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Role of Technology in Detection of COVID-19.Cureus · 2022Review
- COVID-19 transmission in dental and oral/maxillofacial surgical practice during pandemic: questionnaire survey in 51 university hospitals in Japan.The Journal of hospital infection · 2022Article
- Detection of COVID-19 using multimodal data from a wearable device: results from the first TemPredict Study.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite the limited evidence for its effectiveness, thermal screening at points of entry has increasingly become a standard protocol in numerous parts of the globe in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to determine the effectiveness of thermal screening as a key step in diagnosing COVID-19 in a resource-limited setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study based on a review of body temperature and Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 test results records for truck drivers entering Uganda through Mutukula between 15th May and 30th July 2020. All records missing information for body temperature, age, gender, and Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 status were excluded from the data set. A data set of 7,181 entries was used to compare thermal screening and Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 assay test results using the diagnostic statistical test in STATAv15 software. The prevalence of COVID-19 amongst the truck drivers based on Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 assay results was determined. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive and negative Likelihood ratios were obtained using Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 assay as the gold standard.
resultsBased on our gold standard test, the proportion of persons that tested positive for COVID-19 was 6.7% (95% CI: 6.1-7.3). Of the 7,181 persons that were thermally screened, 6,844 (95.3%) were male. The sample median age was 38 years (interquartile range, IQR: 31-45 years). The median body temperature was 36.5°C (IQR: 36.3-36.7) and only n (1.2%) had a body temperature above 37.5°C. The sensitivity and specificity of thermal screening were 9.9% (95% CI: 7.4-13.0) and 99.5% (95% CI: 99.3-99.6) respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 57.8 (95% CI: 46.5-68.6) and 93.9 (95% CI: 93.3-94.4) respectively. The positive and negative Likelihood Ratios (LRs) were 19 (95% CI: 12.4-29.1) and 0.9 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93) respectively.
conclusionIn this study population, the use of Thermal screening alone is ineffective in the detection of potential COVID-19 cases at point of entry. We recommend a combination of screening tests or additional testing using highly sensitive molecular diagnostics such as Polymerase Chain Reaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.