ArticleInternational journal of biometeorology2021
Calibrating UTCI'S comfort assessment scale for three Brazilian cities with different climatic conditions.
Article in International journal of biometeorology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A first approach to human biometeorology research in Brazil: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of biometeorology · 2022Pooled it
- Approach for the vertical wind speed profile implemented in the UTCI basics blocks UTCI applications at the urban pedestrian level.International journal of biometeorology · 2025Article
- High-resolution projections of outdoor thermal stress in the twenty-first century: a Tasmanian case study.International journal of biometeorology · 2024Article
- In vitro susceptibility to fosfomycin in clinical and environmental extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing and/or ciprofloxacin-non-susceptible Escherichia coli isolates.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both global climate change and urbanization trends will demand adaptation measures in cities. Large agglomerations and impacts on landscape and natural environments due to city growth will require guided densification schemes in urban areas, particularly in developing countries. Human biometeorological indices such as the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) could guide this process, as they provide a clear account of expected effects on thermal sensation from a given change in outdoor settings. However, an earlier step should optimally include an adequacy test of suggested comfort and thermal stress ranges with calibration procedures based on surveys with the target population. This paper compares obtained thermal comfort ranges for three different locations in Brazil: Belo Horizonte, 20° S, Aw climate type; Curitiba, 25.5° S, Cfb subtropical climate, both locations in elevation (above 900 m a.s.l.); and Pelotas, at sea level, latitude 32° S, with a Cfa climate type. In each city, a set of outdoor comfort field campaigns has been carried out according to similar procedures, covering a wide range of climatic conditions over different seasons of the year. Obtained results indicate a variation of neutral temperatures up to 3 °C (UTCI units) as a possible latitude and local climate effect between the southern locations relative to the northernmost location. Low UTCI values were found in the two subtropical locations for the lower threshold of the thermal comfort band as compared with the original threshold. A possible explanation for that is a longer exposure to cold conditions as buildings are seldom provided with heating systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32206912What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.