Elsevier

Public Health

Volume 129, Issue 11, November 2015, Pages 1471-1478
Public Health

Original Research
Comparison of Infrared Thermal Detection Systems for mass fever screening in a tropical healthcare setting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.023Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The new generation fever screening system displayed a relatively high sensitivity and specificity for fever.

  • Self-reporting of fever was reliable compared to measured temperature.

  • The handheld thermograph should not be used as a fever-screening tool under tropical conditions.

Abstract

Objectives

Fever screening systems, such as Infrared Thermal Detection Systems (ITDS), have been used for rapid identification of potential cases during respiratory disease outbreaks for public health management. ITDS detect a difference between the subject and ambient temperature, making deployment in hot climates more challenging. This study, conducted in Singapore, a tropical city, evaluates the accuracy of three different ITDS for fever detection compared with traditional oral thermometry and self-reporting in a clinical setting.

Study design

This study is a prospective operational evaluation conducted in the Singapore military on all personnel seeking medical care at a high-volume primary healthcare centre over a one week period in February 2014.

Methods

Three ITDS, the STE Infrared Fever Screening System (IFSS), the Omnisense Sentry MKIII and the handheld Quick Shot Infrared Thermoscope HT-F03B, were evaluated. Temperature measurements were taken outside the healthcare centre, under a sheltered walkway and compared to oral temperature. Subjects were asked if they had fever.

Results

There were 430 subjects screened, of whom 34 participants (7.9%) had confirmed fever, determined by oral thermometer measurement. The handheld infrared thermoscope had a very low sensitivity (29.4%), but a high specificity (96.8%). The STE ITDS had a moderate sensitivity (44.1%), but a very high specificity (99.1%). Self-reported fevers showed good sensitivity (88.2%) and specificity (93.9%). The sensitivity of the Omnisense ITDS (89.7%) was the highest among the three methods with good specificity (92.0%).

Conclusion

The new generation Omnisense ITDS displayed a relatively high sensitivity and specificity for fever. Though it has a lower sensitivity, the old generation STE ITDS system showed a very high specificity. Self-reporting of fever was reliable. The handheld thermograph should not be used as a fever-screening tool under tropical conditions.

Keywords

Fever
Mass screening
Infrared
Thermometry
Tropical

Cited by (0)

View Abstract