tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Travel Med
. 2020 Oct 10;taaa193.
doi: 10.1093/jtm/taaa193. Online ahead of print.
Diagnostic accuracy of non-contact infrared thermometers and thermal scanners: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Nishant Aggarwal[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mohil Garg[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Vignesh Dwarakanathan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Nitesh Gautam[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Swasthi S Kumar[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ranveer Singh Jadon[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mohak Gupta[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Animesh Ray[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Infrared thermal screening, via the use of handheld non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) and thermal scanners, has been widely implemented all over the world. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate its diagnostic accuracy for the detection of fever. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, bioRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, COVID-19 research database, Epistemonikos, EPPI-Centre, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Scopus and Web of Science databases for studies where a non-contact infrared device was used to detect fever against a reference standard of conventional thermometers. Forest plots and Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristics curves were used to describe the pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio. From a total of 1063 results, 30 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 19 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.808 (95%CI 0.656-0.903) and 0.920 (95%CI 0.769-0.975), respectively, for the NCITs (using forehead as the site of measurement), and 0.818 (95%CI 0.758-0.866) and 0.923 (95%CI 0.823-0.969), respectively, for thermal scanners. The sensitivity of NCITs increased on use of rectal temperature as the reference. The sensitivity of thermal scanners decreased in a disease outbreak/pandemic setting. Changes approaching statistical significance were also observed on the exclusion of neonates from the analysis. Thermal screening had a low positive predictive value, especially at the initial stage of an outbreak, while the negative predictive value (NPV) continued to be high even at later stages. Thermal screening has reasonable diagnostic accuracy in the detection of fever, although it may vary with changes in subject characteristics, setting, index test, and the reference standard used. Thermal screening has a good NPV even during a pandemic. The policymakers must take into consideration the factors surrounding the screening strategy while forming ad-hoc guidelines.
Keywords: COVID-19; Fever; Infection control; Influenza; Infrared rays; Mass screening; Pandemics.
. 2020 Oct 10;taaa193.
doi: 10.1093/jtm/taaa193. Online ahead of print.
Diagnostic accuracy of non-contact infrared thermometers and thermal scanners: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Nishant Aggarwal[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mohil Garg[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Vignesh Dwarakanathan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Nitesh Gautam[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Swasthi S Kumar[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ranveer Singh Jadon[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mohak Gupta[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Animesh Ray[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 33043363
- DOI: 10.1093/jtm/taaa193
Abstract
Infrared thermal screening, via the use of handheld non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) and thermal scanners, has been widely implemented all over the world. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate its diagnostic accuracy for the detection of fever. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, bioRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, COVID-19 research database, Epistemonikos, EPPI-Centre, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Scopus and Web of Science databases for studies where a non-contact infrared device was used to detect fever against a reference standard of conventional thermometers. Forest plots and Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristics curves were used to describe the pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio. From a total of 1063 results, 30 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 19 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.808 (95%CI 0.656-0.903) and 0.920 (95%CI 0.769-0.975), respectively, for the NCITs (using forehead as the site of measurement), and 0.818 (95%CI 0.758-0.866) and 0.923 (95%CI 0.823-0.969), respectively, for thermal scanners. The sensitivity of NCITs increased on use of rectal temperature as the reference. The sensitivity of thermal scanners decreased in a disease outbreak/pandemic setting. Changes approaching statistical significance were also observed on the exclusion of neonates from the analysis. Thermal screening had a low positive predictive value, especially at the initial stage of an outbreak, while the negative predictive value (NPV) continued to be high even at later stages. Thermal screening has reasonable diagnostic accuracy in the detection of fever, although it may vary with changes in subject characteristics, setting, index test, and the reference standard used. Thermal screening has a good NPV even during a pandemic. The policymakers must take into consideration the factors surrounding the screening strategy while forming ad-hoc guidelines.
Keywords: COVID-19; Fever; Infection control; Influenza; Infrared rays; Mass screening; Pandemics.