Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34088919›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2021

Proper use of noncontact infrared thermometry for temperature screening during COVID-19.

Amber S Hussain, Heather S Hussain, Nathan Betcher, Robert Behm, Burt Cagir

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amber S HussainDepartment of General Surgery, Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital, 1 Guthrie Square, Sayre, PA, 18840, USA. amber.hussain@guthrie.org.ORCID 0000-0002-4199-2873
Heather S Hussain, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nathan Betcher, Seattle, WA, USA.
Robert BehmDepartment of General Surgery, Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital, 1 Guthrie Square, Sayre, PA, 18840, USA.
Burt CagirDepartment of General Surgery, Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital, 1 Guthrie Square, Sayre, PA, 18840, USA.
SUNY Upstate Medical University · USSeattle University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Among the myriad of challenges healthcare institutions face in dealing with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), screening for the detection of febrile persons entering facilities remains problematic, particularly when paired with CDC and WHO spatial distancing guidance. Aggressive source control measures during the outbreak of COVID-19 has led to re-purposed use of noncontact infrared thermometry (NCIT) for temperature screening. This study was commissioned to establish the efficacy of this technology for temperature screening by healthcare facilities. We conducted a prospective, observational, single-center study in a level II trauma center at the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak to assess (i) method agreement between NCIT and temporal artery reference temperature, (ii) diagnostic accuracy of NCIT in detecting referent temperature [Formula: see text] and ensuing test sensitivity and specificity and (iii) technical limitations of this technology. Of 51 healthy, non-febrile, healthcare workers surveyed, the mean temporal artery temperature was [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text] confidence interval (CI) = [Formula: see text]). Mean NCIT temperatures measured from [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] distances were [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text], respectively. From statistical analysis, the only method in sufficient agreement with the reference standard was NCIT at [Formula: see text]. This demonstrated that the device offset (mean temperature difference) between these methods was [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) with 95% of measurement differences within [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) and [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]). By setting the NCIT screening threshold to [Formula: see text] at [Formula: see text], we achieve diagnostic accuracy with [Formula: see text] test sensitivity and specificity for temperature detection [Formula: see text] by reference standard. In comparison, reducing this screening criterion to the lower limit of the device-specific offset, such as [Formula: see text], produces a highly sensitive screening test at [Formula: see text], which may be favorable in high-risk pandemic disease. For future consideration, an infrared device with a higher distance-to-spot size ratio approaching 50:1 would theoretically produce similar results at [Formula: see text], in accordance with CDC and WHO spatial distancing guidelines.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBody TemperatureCOVID-19FemaleFeverHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityThermometryYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34088919
PMCPMC8178358
OpenAlexW3163985688

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.