ArticleApplied ergonomics2022
SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) workplace temperature screening: Seasonal concerns for thermal detection in northern regions.
Article in Applied ergonomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement and Processing of Thermographic Data of Passing Persons for Epidemiological Purposes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Relative Stability of Regional Facial and Ocular Temperature Measurements in Healthy Individuals.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Article
- Pilot Influenza Syndromic Surveillance System Based on Absenteeism and Temperature in China: Development and Usability Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) applications in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned and considerations for methods.Applied ergonomics · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Workplace temperature screening has become standard practice during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The objective was to determine the consistency of four temperature devices during exposure to simulated and actual environmental conditions reflective of a workplace. An infrared (IR) digital thermometer (accuracy(A)±0.2), IR laser thermometer (A±1), and thermal imaging camera (A±0.3) were used to measure forehead and tympanic (digital only) temperatures. The first experiment was conducted in a controlled simulated environment (-20 to 20 °C) with three participants (32-YOF, 27-YOM, 20-YOF). The second experiment used actual outdoor conditions (-0.48 to 45.6 °C) with two participants (32-YOF, 27-YOM). The tympanic measurement was the least impacted by environmental temperature (mean(±SD)): simulated (36.8(±0.18) °C) and actual (36.9(±0.16) °C). The thermal imaging camera had the lowest RMSE values (0.81-0.97 °C), with outdoor temperatures ranging from 0 to 45 °C. Environmental temperature influenced forehead temperature readings and required a resting period in a thermoneutral environment (5-9 min (-20 to -10 °C) to immediate (15-20 °C)).
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.