Comparison of 3 Infrared Thermal Detection Systems and Self-Report for Mass Fever Screening

• Main Authors: An V. Nguyen, Nicole J. Cohen, Harvey Lipman, Clive M. Brown, Noelle-Angelique Molinari, William L. Jackson, Hannah L. Kirking, Paige Szymanowski, Todd W. Wilson, Bisan A. Salhi, Rebecca R. Roberts, David W. Stryker, Daniel B. Fishbein
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010-11-01
• Series: Emerging Infectious Diseases
• Subjects: bioterrorism and preparedness; mass screening; infrared thermal detection systems; self-reported fever; research; United States
• Online Access: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/16/11/10-0703_article

Despite limited evidence regarding their utility, infrared thermal detection systems (ITDS) are increasingly being used for mass fever detection. We compared temperature measurements for 3 ITDS (FLIR ThermoVision A20M [FLIR Systems Inc., Boston, MA, USA], OptoTherm Thermoscreen [OptoTherm Thermal Imaging Systems and Infrared Cameras Inc., Sewickley, PA, USA], and Wahl Fever Alert Imager HSI2000S [Wahl Instruments Inc., Asheville, NC, USA]) with oral temperatures (>100°F = confirmed fever) and self-reported fever. Of 2,873 patients enrolled, 476 (16.6%) reported a fever, and 64 (2.2%) had a confirmed fever. Self-reported fever had a sensitivity of 75.0%, specificity 84.7%, and positive predictive value 10.1%. At optimal cutoff values for detecting fever, temperature measurements by OptoTherm and FLIR had greater sensitivity (91.0% and 90.0%, respectively) and specificity (86.0% and 80.0%, respectively) than did self-reports. Correlations between ITDS and oral temperatures were similar for OptoTherm (ρ = 0.43) and FLIR (ρ = 0.42) but significantly lower for Wahl (ρ = 0.14; p<0.001). When compared with oral temperatures, 2 systems (OptoTherm and FLIR) were reasonably accurate for detecting fever and predicted fever better than self-reports.