Tay M R, Low Y L, Zhao X, Cook A R, Lee V J
Biodefence Centre, Singapore Armed Forces, 778910, Singapore.
Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Public Health. 2015 Nov;129(11):1471-8. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.023. Epub 2015 Aug 18.
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.
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.
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.
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%).
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.
发热筛查系统,如红外热检测系统(ITDS),已被用于在呼吸道疾病爆发期间快速识别潜在病例,以进行公共卫生管理。ITDS检测受检者与环境温度之间的差异,这使得在炎热气候下进行部署更具挑战性。本研究在热带城市新加坡进行,评估了三种不同的ITDS在临床环境中与传统口腔测温法和自我报告相比用于发热检测的准确性。
本研究是一项前瞻性操作评估,于2014年2月在新加坡军队中对在一家大型初级医疗保健中心寻求医疗护理的所有人员进行了为期一周的研究。
对三种ITDS进行了评估,即STE红外发热筛查系统(IFSS)、Omnisense Sentry MKIII和手持式快速射击红外热像仪HT-F03B。在医疗保健中心外有遮蔽的人行道上进行温度测量,并与口腔温度进行比较。询问受试者是否发烧。
共筛查了430名受试者,其中34名参与者(7.9%)经口腔温度计测量确诊发烧。手持式红外热像仪的灵敏度非常低(29.4%),但特异性很高(96.8%)。STE ITDS的灵敏度中等(44.1%),但特异性非常高(99.1%)。自我报告的发烧显示出良好的灵敏度(88.2%)和特异性(93.9%)。Omnisense ITDS的灵敏度(89.7%)在三种方法中最高,特异性也良好(92.0%)。
新一代Omnisense ITDS对发烧表现出相对较高的灵敏度和特异性。尽管旧一代STE ITDS系统的灵敏度较低,但其特异性非常高。发烧的自我报告是可靠的。在热带条件下,手持式热成像仪不应用作发热筛查工具。