Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic as a temperature-measurement tool for screening and isolating patients in healthcare settings, travelers at ports of entry, and the general public. To understand the accuracy of NCITs, a clinical study was conducted with 1113 adult subjects using six different commercially available NCIT models. A total of 60 NCITs were tested with 10 units for each model. The NCIT-measured temperature was compared with the oral temperature obtained using a reference oral thermometer. The mean difference between the reference thermometer and NCIT measurement (clinical bias) was different for each NCIT model. The clinical bias ranged from just under − 0.9 °C (under-reporting) to just over 0.2 °C (over-reporting). The individual differences ranged from − 3 to + 2 °C in extreme cases, with the majority of the differences between − 2 and + 1 °C. Depending upon the NCIT model, 48% to 88% of the individual temperature measurements were outside the labeled accuracy stated by the manufacturers. The sensitivity of the NCIT models for detecting subject’s temperature above 38 °C ranged from 0 to 0.69. Overall, our results indicate that some NCIT devices may not be consistently accurate enough to determine if subject’s temperature exceeds a specific threshold of 38 °C. Model-to-model variability and individual model accuracy in the displayed temperature were found to be outside of acceptable limits. Accuracy and credibility of the NCITs should be thoroughly evaluated before using them as an effective screening tool.

The Department of Health and Human Services, at the direction of Congress, has recently begun to address concerns regarding the development of medical devices designed specifically for the pediatric population, including devices for pediatric mechanical circulatory support, as evidenced by the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) funding of several development contracts. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for marketing of these devices will typically follow either of two regulatory pathways: the Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) or the Premarket Application (PMA). An HDE is limited both in the extent of clinical use and economic benefit to the manufacturer, but does not require data derived from a clinical trial for market approval. A PMA allows for use in a larger patient population and offers economic benefit for the manufacturer; it does, however, almost always necessitate data derived from a clinical trial. The HDE and PMA require demonstration of a reasonable assurance of safety. In addition, an HDE requires a demonstration of probable benefit, whereas a PMA requires a demonstration of a reasonable assurance of effectiveness. The evidence that can be used to support an HDE or a PMA approval may include both preclinical and clinical data. Types of preclinical tests needed depend upon the device design and its intended use, because circulatory support devices are all unique.