Cited by 321COVID-19 epidemiological studiesTravel-related health issuesSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing

Effectiveness of airport screening at detecting travellers infected with novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Open access
Quilty, Billy J, Clifford, Sam, CMMID nCoV working group2, Flasche, Stefan, Eggo, Rosalind M·2020·Eurosurveillance

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We evaluated effectiveness of thermal passenger screening for 2019-nCoV infection at airport exit and entry to inform public health decision-making. In our baseline scenario, we estimated that 46% (95% confidence interval: 36 to 58) of infected travellers would not be detected, depending on incubation period, sensitivity of exit and entry screening, and proportion of asymptomatic cases. Airport screening is unlikely to detect a sufficient proportion of 2019-nCoV infected travellers to avoid entry of infected travellers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.5.2000080

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The large numbers of false-positive and false-negative results from thermal sensors mean that this is unlikely to have a substantial effect beyond increasing awareness.

    “The large numbers of false-positive and false-negative results mean that this is unlikely to have a substantial effect beyond increasing awareness 51,52 .”

    From Digital technologies in the public-health response to COVID-19 (2020) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Discussion and conclusions section reports that screening misses many infected travellers and, because of limited specificity, burdens uninfected travellers with additional screening. It concludes that thermal screening is unlikely to prevent infected travellers entering new regions, but does not assess whether its effect is limited to increasing awareness. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quilty, B. J., Clifford, S., group2, C. N. W., Flasche, S., & Eggo, R. M.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
Corresponding author
Quilty, Billy J
Venue
Eurosurveillance
Published
2020-02-06
Volume
25
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 1025-496X (ISSN-L)
  • 1560-7917
OpenAlex
W3005151538
Cited by
321
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 144 · 2017: 1
FWCI
11.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Eurosurveillance (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (206250, 210758/Z/18/Z, 206250/Z/17/Z, Z/17/Z, 208812, 03010, 210758, 208812/Z/17/Z)
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (ITCRZ 03010, 16/137/109, 16/137/10)
  • Department of Health and Social Care (ITCRZ 03010)
  • Royal Society (208812, Z/17/Z, 206250/Z/17/Z, 208812/Z/17/Z)
  • Research Councils UK (MR/S003975/1, ES/P010873/1)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/S003975/1)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/P010873/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Travel-related health issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, airport security screening, thermal screening, infection detection, asymptomatic infection, incubation period, screening sensitivity, public health decision-making
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Body Temperature, Decision Making, Fever, Humans, Mass Screening, Models, Theoretical, Pneumonia, Viral, Population Surveillance, Public Health, Coronavirus Infections, Communicable Diseases, Emerging, Air Travel

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review