ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2022
Reliability of Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers for Fever Screening Under COVID-19.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of age on comparative diagnostic accuracy of temporal artery thermometers and non-contact infrared thermometers for fever detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers and Thermal Scanners for Human Body Temperature Monitoring: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Cross-sectional analysis of site- and ambient temperature-related variability in noncontact infrared thermometry among healthy Black African adults.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Spatial temperature monitoring of preterm infants using a multi-modal camera setup.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Perceived Fever, Manual Fever Checking, and Non-Contact Frontal Infrared Thermometer; A Cross-sectional Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Wearable Sensing Technologies for the Management of Cancer, Diabetes, and COVID-19.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Clinical Accuracy of Non-Contact Forehead Infrared Thermometer Measurement in Children: An Observational Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Novel Non-Invasive Thermometer for Continuous Core Body Temperature: Comparison with Tympanic Temperature in an Acute Stroke Clinical Setting.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Optimal diagnostic fever thresholds using non-contact infrared thermometers under COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Fever is one of the most typical clinical symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are commonly used to screen for fever. However, there is a lack of authoritative data to define a "fever" when an NCIT is used and previous studies have shown that NCIT readings fluctuate widely depending on ambient temperatures and the body surface site screened. The aim of this study was to establish cut-off points for normal temperatures of different body sites (neck, forehead, temples, and wrist) and investigate the accuracy of NCITs at various ambient temperatures to improve the standardization and accuracy of fever screening. Patients and Methods: A prospective investigation was conducted among 904 participants in the outpatient and emergency departments of Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital. Body temperature was measured using NCITs and mercury axillary thermometers. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the accuracy of body temperature detection at the four body surface sites. Data on participant characteristics were also collected. Results: Among the four surface sites, the neck temperature detection group had the highest accuracy. When the neck temperature was 37.35°C as the optimum fever diagnostic threshold, the sensitivity was 0.866. The optimum fever diagnostic thresholds for forehead, temporal, and wrist temperature were 36.65°C, 36.65°C, and 36.75°C, respectively. Moreover, triple neck temperature detection had the highest sensitivity, up to 0.998, whereas the sensitivity of triple wrist temperature detections was 0.949. Notably, the accuracy of NCITs significantly reduced when the temperature was lower than 18°C. Conclusion: Neck temperature had the highest accuracy among the four NCIT temperature measurement sites, with an optimum fever diagnostic threshold of 37.35°C. Considering the findings reported in our study, we recommend triple neck temperature detection with NCITs as the fever screening standard for COVID-19.
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.