Clinical accuracy of infrared temperature measurement devices: a comparison against non-invasive core-body temperature

Thomas Holder; Frances Sophie Woodley Hooper; David Yates; Zion Tse; Samadhan Patil; Ahmed Moussa; Lucy Batten; Vignesh Radhakrishnan; Mark Allison; Catherine Hewitt; Ada Keding; Greg Forshaw; Vijay Jayagopal

doi:10.7861/clinmed.2022-0252

Clinical accuracy of infrared temperature measurement devices: a comparison against non-invasive core-body temperature

Thomas Holder, Frances Sophie Woodley Hooper, David Yates, Zion Tse, Samadhan Patil, Ahmed Moussa, Lucy Batten, Vignesh Radhakrishnan, Mark Allison, Catherine Hewitt, Ada Keding, Greg Forshaw, Vijay Jayagopal

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the implementation of non-contact infrared thermometry (NCIT) became an increasingly popular method of screening body temperature. However, data on the accuracy of these devices and the standardisation of their use are limited. In the current study, the body temperature of non-febrile volunteers was measured using infrared (IR) thermography, IR tympanic thermometry and IR gun thermometry at different facial feature locations and distances and compared with SpotOn core-body temperature. Poor agreement was found between all IR devices and SpotOn measurements (intra-class correlation coefficient <0.8). Bland-Alman analysis showed the narrowest limits of agreement with the IR gun at 3 cm from the forehead (bias = 0.19°C, limits of agreement (LOA): -0.58°C to 0.97°C) and widest with the IR gun at the nose (bias = 1.40°C, LOA: -1.15°C to 3.94°C). Thus, our findings challenge the established use of IR thermometry devices within hospital settings without adequate standard operating procedures to reduce operator error.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	157-163
Number of pages	7
Journal	Clinical Medicine
Volume	23
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2022-0252
Publication status	Published - 1 Mar 2023

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Humans
Body Temperature
Temperature
Thermometry/methods
COVID-19/diagnosis
Volunteers

Access to Document

10.7861/clinmed.2022-0252Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Clinical accuracy of infrared temperature measurement devices: a comparison against non-invasive core-body temperature
© Royal College of Physicians 2023
Final published version, 732 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

Holder, T., Hooper, F. S. W., Yates, D., Tse, Z., Patil, S., Moussa, A., Batten, L., Radhakrishnan, V., Allison, M., Hewitt, C., Keding, A., Forshaw, G., & Jayagopal, V. (2023). Clinical accuracy of infrared temperature measurement devices: a comparison against non-invasive core-body temperature. Clinical Medicine, 23(2), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2022-0252

@article{fb6791f6a2894a56b617150f4281a9e8,

title = "Clinical accuracy of infrared temperature measurement devices: a comparison against non-invasive core-body temperature",

abstract = "During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the implementation of non-contact infrared thermometry (NCIT) became an increasingly popular method of screening body temperature. However, data on the accuracy of these devices and the standardisation of their use are limited. In the current study, the body temperature of non-febrile volunteers was measured using infrared (IR) thermography, IR tympanic thermometry and IR gun thermometry at different facial feature locations and distances and compared with SpotOn core-body temperature. Poor agreement was found between all IR devices and SpotOn measurements (intra-class correlation coefficient <0.8). Bland-Alman analysis showed the narrowest limits of agreement with the IR gun at 3 cm from the forehead (bias = 0.19°C, limits of agreement (LOA): -0.58°C to 0.97°C) and widest with the IR gun at the nose (bias = 1.40°C, LOA: -1.15°C to 3.94°C). Thus, our findings challenge the established use of IR thermometry devices within hospital settings without adequate standard operating procedures to reduce operator error.",

keywords = "Humans, Body Temperature, Temperature, Thermometry/methods, COVID-19/diagnosis, Volunteers",

author = "Thomas Holder and Hooper, {Frances Sophie Woodley} and David Yates and Zion Tse and Samadhan Patil and Ahmed Moussa and Lucy Batten and Vignesh Radhakrishnan and Mark Allison and Catherine Hewitt and Ada Keding and Greg Forshaw and Vijay Jayagopal",

note = "{\textcopyright} Royal College of Physicians 2023.",

year = "2023",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.7861/clinmed.2022-0252",

language = "English",

volume = "23",

pages = "157--163",

journal = "Clinical Medicine",

issn = "1470-2118",

publisher = "Royal College of Physicians",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical accuracy of infrared temperature measurement devices

T2 - a comparison against non-invasive core-body temperature

AU - Holder, Thomas

AU - Hooper, Frances Sophie Woodley

AU - Yates, David

AU - Tse, Zion

AU - Patil, Samadhan

AU - Moussa, Ahmed

AU - Batten, Lucy

AU - Radhakrishnan, Vignesh

AU - Allison, Mark

AU - Hewitt, Catherine

AU - Keding, Ada

AU - Forshaw, Greg

AU - Jayagopal, Vijay

PY - 2023/3/1

Y1 - 2023/3/1

N2 - During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the implementation of non-contact infrared thermometry (NCIT) became an increasingly popular method of screening body temperature. However, data on the accuracy of these devices and the standardisation of their use are limited. In the current study, the body temperature of non-febrile volunteers was measured using infrared (IR) thermography, IR tympanic thermometry and IR gun thermometry at different facial feature locations and distances and compared with SpotOn core-body temperature. Poor agreement was found between all IR devices and SpotOn measurements (intra-class correlation coefficient <0.8). Bland-Alman analysis showed the narrowest limits of agreement with the IR gun at 3 cm from the forehead (bias = 0.19°C, limits of agreement (LOA): -0.58°C to 0.97°C) and widest with the IR gun at the nose (bias = 1.40°C, LOA: -1.15°C to 3.94°C). Thus, our findings challenge the established use of IR thermometry devices within hospital settings without adequate standard operating procedures to reduce operator error.

AB - During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the implementation of non-contact infrared thermometry (NCIT) became an increasingly popular method of screening body temperature. However, data on the accuracy of these devices and the standardisation of their use are limited. In the current study, the body temperature of non-febrile volunteers was measured using infrared (IR) thermography, IR tympanic thermometry and IR gun thermometry at different facial feature locations and distances and compared with SpotOn core-body temperature. Poor agreement was found between all IR devices and SpotOn measurements (intra-class correlation coefficient <0.8). Bland-Alman analysis showed the narrowest limits of agreement with the IR gun at 3 cm from the forehead (bias = 0.19°C, limits of agreement (LOA): -0.58°C to 0.97°C) and widest with the IR gun at the nose (bias = 1.40°C, LOA: -1.15°C to 3.94°C). Thus, our findings challenge the established use of IR thermometry devices within hospital settings without adequate standard operating procedures to reduce operator error.

KW - Humans

KW - Body Temperature

KW - Temperature

KW - Thermometry/methods

KW - COVID-19/diagnosis

KW - Volunteers

U2 - 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0252

DO - 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0252

M3 - Article

C2 - 36958833

SN - 1470-2118

VL - 23

SP - 157

EP - 163

JO - Clinical Medicine

JF - Clinical Medicine

IS - 2

ER -