Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34764438›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers.

Stacey J L Sullivan, Jean E Rinaldi, Prasanna Hariharan, Jon P Casamento, Seungchul Baek, Nathanael Seay, Oleg Vesnovsky, L D Timmie Topoleski

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Both caffeine andFrontiers in physiology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

Stacey J L SullivanDivision of Applied Mechanics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Jean E RinaldiDivision of Applied Mechanics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Prasanna HariharanDivision of Applied Mechanics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA. Prasanna.hariharan@fda.hhs.gov.
Jon P CasamentoDivision of Applied Mechanics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Seungchul BaekUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Nathanael SeayUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Oleg VesnovskyDivision of Applied Mechanics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
L D Timmie TopoleskiDivision of Applied Mechanics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.

Funding

EXPAND PARTICIPATION BY MINORITIES IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCER25GM055036 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY · PI SUMMERS, MICHAEL FINLEY · 1996 to 2021
$16.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM055036
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

COVID-19ThermometersAdultBody TemperatureFemaleFeverHumansInfrared RaysMalePandemicsSensitivity and SpecificityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34764438
PMCPMC8586154

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.