Dataset Information

Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location.

ABSTRACT: SIGNIFICANCE:Infrared thermographs (IRTs) have been used for fever screening during infectious disease epidemics, including severe acute respiratory syndrome, Ebola virus disease, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although IRTs have significant potential for human body temperature measurement, the literature indicates inconsistent diagnostic performance, possibly due to wide variations in implemented methodology. A standardized method for IRT fever screening was recently published, but there is a lack of clinical data demonstrating its impact on IRT performance. AIM:Perform a clinical study to assess the diagnostic effectiveness of standardized IRT-based fever screening and evaluate the effect of facial measurement location. APPROACH:We performed a clinical study of 596 subjects. Temperatures from 17 facial locations were extracted from thermal images and compared with oral thermometry. Statistical analyses included calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) values for detection of febrile subjects. RESULTS:Pearson correlation coefficients for IRT-based and reference (oral) temperatures were found to vary strongly with measurement location. Approaches based on maximum temperatures in either inner canthi or full-face regions indicated stronger discrimination ability than maximum forehead temperature (AUC values of 0.95 to 0.97 versus 0.86 to 0.87, respectively) and other specific facial locations. These values are markedly better than the vast majority of results found in prior human studies of IRT-based fever screening. CONCLUSION:Our findings provide clinical confirmation of the utility of consensus approaches for fever screening, including the use of inner canthi temperatures, while also indicating that full-face maximum temperatures may provide an effective alternate approach.

SUBMITTER: Zhou Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7486803 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location.

Zhou Yangling Y Ghassemi Pejman P Chen Michelle M McBride David D Casamento Jon P JP Pfefer T Joshua TJ Wang Quanzeng Q

Journal of biomedical optics 20200901 9

<h4>Significance</h4>Infrared thermographs (IRTs) have been used for fever screening during infectious disease epidemics, including severe acute respiratory syndrome, Ebola virus disease, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although IRTs have significant potential for human body temperature measurement, the literature indicates inconsistent diagnostic performance, possibly due to wide variations in implemented methodology. A standardized method for IRT fever screening was recently published ...[more]

PMID: 32921005

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary disease is a potentially serious yet underdiagnosed complication of Sjögren's syndrome, the second most common autoimmune rheumatic disease. Approximately 16% of patients with Sjögren's demonstrate pulmonary involvement with higher mortality and lower quality of life.Research questionClinical practice guidelines for pulmonary manifestations of Sjögren's were developed by the Sjögren's Foundation after identifying a critical need for early diagnosis and improved quality and consistency of care.Study design and methodsA rigorous and transparent methodology was followed according to American College of Rheumatology guidelines. The Pulmonary Topic Review Group (TRG) developed clinical questions in the PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and selected literature search parameters. Each article was reviewed by a minimum of two TRG members for eligibility and assessment of quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Guidelines were then drafted based on available evidence, expert opinion, and clinical importance. Draft recommendations with a clinical rationale and data extraction tables were submitted to a Consensus Expert Panel for consideration and approval, with at least 75% agreement required for individual recommendations to be included in the final version.ResultsThe literature search revealed 1,192 articles, of which 150 qualified for consideration in guideline development. Of the original 85 PICO questions posed by the TRG, 52 recommendations were generated. These were then reviewed by the Consensus Expert Panel and 52 recommendations were finalized, with a mean agreement of 97.71% (range, 79%-100%). The recommendations span topics of evaluating Sjögren's patients for pulmonary manifestations and assessing, managing, and treating upper and lower airway disease, interstitial lung disease, and lymphoproliferative disease.InterpretationClinical practice guidelines for pulmonary manifestations in Sjögren's will improve early identification, evaluation, and uniformity of care by primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and pulmonologists. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Project description:ImportanceThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. However, USPSTF screening guidelines were derived from a study population including only 4% African American smokers, and racial differences in smoking patterns were not considered.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of USPSTF lung cancer screening eligibility criteria in a predominantly African American and low-income cohort.Design, setting, and participantsThe Southern Community Cohort Study prospectively enrolled adults visiting community health centers across 12 southern US states from March 25, 2002, through September 24, 2009, and followed up for cancer incidence through December 31, 2014. Participants included African American and white current and former smokers aged 40 through 79 years. Statistical analysis was performed from May 11, 2016, to December 6, 2018.ExposuresSelf-reported race, age, and smoking history. Cumulative exposure smoking histories encompassed most recent follow-up questionnaires.Main outcomes and measuresIncident lung cancer cases assessed for eligibility for lung cancer screening using USPSTF criteria.ResultsAmong 48 364 ever smokers, 32 463 (67%) were African American and 15 901 (33%) were white, with 1269 incident lung cancers identified. Among all 48 364 Southern Community Cohort Study participants, 5654 of 32 463 African American smokers (17%) were eligible for USPSTF screening compared with 4992 of 15 901 white smokers (31%) (P < .001). Among persons diagnosed with lung cancer, a significantly lower percentage of African American smokers (255 of 791; 32%) was eligible for screening compared with white smokers (270 of 478; 56%) (P < .001). The lower percentage of eligible lung cancer cases in African American smokers was primarily associated with fewer smoking pack-years among African American vs white smokers (median pack-years: 25.8 [interquartile range, 16.9-42.0] vs 48.0 [interquartile range, 30.2-70.5]; P < .001). Racial disparity was observed in the sensitivity and specificity of USPSTF guidelines between African American and white smokers for all ages. Lowering the smoking pack-year eligibility criteria to a minimum 20-pack-year history was associated with an increased percentage of screening eligibility of African American smokers and with equitable performance of sensitivity and specificity compared with white smokers across all ages (for a 55-year-old current African American smoker, sensitivity increased from 32.2% to 49.0% vs 56.5% for a 55-year-old white current smoker; specificity decreased from 83.0% to 71.6% vs 69.4%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceCurrent USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines may be too conservative for African American smokers. The findings suggest that race-specific adjustment of pack-year criteria in lung cancer screening guidelines would result in more equitable screening for African American smokers at high risk for lung cancer.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered the gold standard of cardiac volumetric measurements. Flow in the aortic root is often measured at the sinotubular junction, even though placing the slice just above valve level may be more precise. It is unknown how much flow measurements vary at different levels in the aortic root and which level corresponds best to left ventricle volumetry.MethodsAll patients were older than 70 years presenting with at least one of the following diagnoses: diabetes, hypertension, prior stroke and/or heart failure. Patients with arrhythmias during CMR and aortic stenosis were excluded from the analyses. Stroke volumes were measured volumetrically (SVref) from steady-state free precision short axis images covering the entire left ventricle, excluding the papillary muscles and including the left ventricular outflow tract. Flow sequences (through-plane phase contrast velocity mapping) were obtained at valve level (SVV) and at the sinotubular junction (SVST). Firstly, SVV and SVST were compared to each other and secondly, after excluding patients with mitral regurgitations to ensure that stroke volumes measured volumetrically would theoretically be equal to flow measurements, SVV and SVST were compared to SVref.ResultsInitially, 152 patients were included. 22 were excluded because of arrhythmias during scans and 9 were excluded for aortic stenosis. Accordingly, data from 121 patients were analysed and of these 63 had visually evident mitral regurgitation on cine images. On average, stroke volumes measured with flow at the sinotubular junction was 13-16 % lower than when measured at valve level (70.0 mL ±13.8 vs. 81.8 mL ±15.5). This was in excess of the expected difference caused by the outflow to the coronary arteries. In the 58 patients with no valvulopathy, stroke volumes measured at valve level (79.0 mL ±12.4) was closest to the volumetric measurement (85.4 mL ±12.0) but still significantly lower (p < 0.001). Flow measured at the ST-junction (68.1 mL ±11.6) was significantly lower than at valve level and the volumetric measurements. The mean difference between SVref-SVV (6.4 mL) and SVref-SVST (18.2 mL) showed similar variances (SD 7.4 vs. 8.1 respectively) and hence equal accuracy.ConclusionsAortic flow measured at valve level corresponded best with volumetric measurements and on average flow measured at the sinotubular junction underestimated flow approximately 15 % compared to valve level.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02036450 . Registered 08/01/2014.

Dataset Information

Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location.

Publications

Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets