Comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems and self-report for mass fever screening.
Comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems and self-report for mass fever screening.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3201/eid1611.100703
复制
发表时间：
2010-11
影响因子：
11.8
通讯作者：
Fishbein DB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nguyen AV;Cohen NJ;Lipman H;Brown CM;Molinari NA;Jackson WL;Kirking H;Szymanowski P;Wilson TW;Salhi BA;Roberts RR;Stryker DW;Fishbein DB
在医院环境中，该系统对于发热检测具有合理的实用性。尽管关于其实用性的证据有限，但红外热探测系统越来越多地用于集体发热探测。我们比较了3个ITDS（FLIR ThermoVision A20 M [FLIR Systems Inc.，Boston，MA，USA]，OptoTherm Thermoscreen [OptoTherm Thermal Imaging Systems and Infrared Cameras Inc.，塞维克利，宾夕法尼亚州，美国]和Wahl发烧警报成像仪HSI 2000 S [Wahl仪器公司，Asheville，NC，USA]），口腔温度（>100°F =确诊发热）和自我报告发热。在入组的2，873例患者中，476例（16.6%）报告发热，64例（2.2%）确诊发热。自我报告发热的敏感性为75.0%，特异性为84.7%，阳性预测值为10.1%。在检测发热的最佳临界值时，通过OptoTherm和FLIR测量的温度比自我报告具有更高的灵敏度（分别为91.0%和90.0%）和特异性（分别为86.0%和80.0%）。对于OptoTherm（ρ = 0.43）和FLIR（ρ = 0.42），ITDS和口腔温度之间的相关性相似，但Wahl的相关性显著较低（ρ = 0.14; p<0.001）。与口腔温度相比，2个系统（OptoTherm和FLIR）在检测发热方面相当准确，并且比自我报告更好地预测发热。
In a hospital setting, the systems had reasonable utility for fever detection. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Hooper, Valfire D.;Andrews, Jeannette O.
通讯作者：
Andrews, Jeannette O.
DOI：
10.1006/smvy.1994.1010
发表时间：
1994-04-01
期刊：
SEMINARS IN VIROLOGY
影响因子：
--
作者：
MURPHY, FA;NATHANSON, N
通讯作者：
NATHANSON, N
DOI：
10.1134/s1607672906020049
发表时间：
2006-03-01
期刊：
Doklady. Biochemistry and biophysics
影响因子：
--
作者：
Ivanitsky, G R;Khizhnyak, E P;Khizhnyak, L N
通讯作者：
Khizhnyak, L N
影响因子：
11.8
作者：
Hausfater, Pierre;Zhao, Yan;Riou, Bruno
通讯作者：
Riou, Bruno
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Ng, EYK;Kaw, GJL;Chang, WM
通讯作者：
Chang, WM