非接触式红外体温计和热扫描仪的诊断准确性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Diagnostic accuracy of non-contact infrared thermometers and thermal scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

Department of Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

出版信息

J Travel Med. 2020 Dec 23;27(8). 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, whereas 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.

摘要

红外热筛查,通过使用手持式非接触式红外测温仪(NCITs)和热扫描仪,已在全球范围内广泛实施。我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以研究其对发热检测的诊断准确性。我们在 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、medRxiv、bioRxiv、ClinicalTrials.gov、COVID-19 开放研究数据集、COVID-19 研究数据库、Epistemonikos、EPPI-Centre、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台、Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库中搜索了使用非接触式红外设备检测发热并与常规温度计的参考标准进行比较的研究。森林图和分层汇总受试者工作特征曲线用于描述敏感性、特异性和诊断优势比的汇总汇总估计值。从总共 1063 个结果中,有 30 项研究纳入了定性综合分析,其中 19 项研究纳入了荟萃分析。NCITs(使用额头作为测量部位)的汇总敏感性和特异性分别为 0.808(95%CI 0.656-0.903)和 0.920(95%CI 0.769-0.975),热扫描仪的汇总敏感性和特异性分别为 0.818(95%CI 0.758-0.866)和 0.923(95%CI 0.823-0.969)。当使用直肠温度作为参考时,NCITs 的敏感性增加。在疾病爆发/大流行期间,热扫描仪的敏感性降低。在排除新生儿进行分析后,也观察到接近统计学意义的变化。热筛查的阳性预测值较低,尤其是在疫情爆发的早期阶段,而阴性预测值(NPV)即使在后期阶段也保持较高。热筛查在检测发热方面具有合理的诊断准确性,尽管它可能因受检者特征、环境、指标检测和参考标准的变化而有所不同。即使在大流行期间,热筛查也具有良好的 NPV。决策者在制定临时指南时,必须考虑筛查策略周围的因素。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索