Table 1. Comparisons of 3 infrared thermal detection system results and self-reported fever with oral temperature among patients in 3 emergency departments, USA, 2008–2009*.
| Characteristics | OptoTherm, n = 2,507 patients | FLIR, n = 2,515 patients | Wahl, n = 2,061 patients | Self-reported fever, n = 2,389 patients |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean temperature, °F (SD) | 94.3 (1.26) | 95.7 (1.38) | 89.4 (2.56) | – |
| Optimal fever threshold, °F |
95.3 |
96.4 |
89.3 |
– |
| Fever (oral temperature >100°F) | ||||
| No. (%) identified as febrile by each method | 275 (11.0) | 247 (9.8) | 577 (28.0) | 404 (16.9) |
| Sensitivity (95% CI) | 91.0 (85.0–97.0) | 90.0 (84.0–97.0) | 80.0 (76.0–85.0) | 75.0 (64.4–85.6) |
| Specificity (95% CI) | 86.0 (81.0–90.0) | 80.0 (76.0–84.0) | 65.0 (61.0–69.0) | 84.7 (83.4–86.1) |
| Positive predictive value (95% C) | 17.9 (13.6–22.2) | 18.4 (13.7–23.0) | 5.7 (4.1–7.3) | 10.1 (7.4–12.8) |
| Negative predictive value (95% CI) |
99.6 (99.3–99.8) |
99.5 (99.1–99.7) |
99.1 (98.6–99.5) |
99.3 (98.9–99.6) |
| Febrile by either ITDS or self-report | ||||
| No. (%) identified as febrile by each method | 597 (23.8) | 586 (23.3) | 793 (38.5) | – |
| Sensitivity (95% CI) | 93.8 (87.8–99.7) | 89.1 (81.4–96.7) | 93.8 (87.8–99.7) | – |
| Specificity (95% CI) | 78.0 (76.4–79.5) | 78.4 (76.9–80.0) | 63.3 (61.6–65.1) | – |
| Positive predictive value (95% CI) | 9.0 (6.9–11.2) | 8.8 (6.8–11.3) | 5.6 (4.3–7.1) | – |
| Negative predictive value (95% CI) | 99.8 (99.5–99.9) | 99.7 (99.3–99.9) | 99.8 (99.4–99.9) | – |
*OptoTherm Thermoscreen (OptoTherm Thermal Imaging Systems and Infrared Cameras Inc., Sewickley, PA, USA), FLIR ThermoVision A20M (FLIR Systems Inc., Boston, MA, USA), and Wahl Fever Alert Imager HIS2000S (Wahl Instruments Inc., Asheville, NC, USA). CI, confidence interval; ITDS, infrared thermal detection system.