Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32630486›Full record

ArticleMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2020

Comparison of WBGTs over Different Surfaces within an Athletic Complex.

Andrew Grundstein, Earl Cooper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2020. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrew GrundsteinDepartment of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA .
Earl CooperDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many athletic governing bodies are adopting on-site measurement of the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) as part of their heat safety policies. It is well known, however, that microclimatic conditions can vary over different surface types and a question is whether more than one WBGT sensor is needed to accurately capture local environmental conditions. Our study collected matched WBGT data over three commonly used athletic surfaces (grass, artificial turf, and hardcourt tennis) across an athletic complex on the campus of the University of Georgia in Athens, GA. Data were collected every 10 min from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. over a four-day period during July 2019. Results indicate that there is no difference in WBGT among the three surfaces, even when considered over morning, midday, and afternoon practice periods. We did observe microclimatic differences in dry-bulb temperature and dewpoint temperature among the sites. Greater dry-bulb and lower dewpoint temperatures occurred over the tennis and artificial turf surfaces compared with the grass field because of reduced evapotranspiration and increase convective transfers of sensible heat over these surfaces. The lack of difference in WBGT among the surfaces is attributed to the counterbalancing influences of the different components that comprise the index. We conclude that, in a humid, subtropical climate over well-watered grass, there is no difference in WBGT among the three athletic surfaces and that, under these circumstances, a single monitoring site can provide representative WBGTs for nearby athletic surfaces.

Indexed as

Fitness CentersFloors and FloorcoveringsGeorgiaHumansThermographyWeights and Measuresathletic surfacesheat stresssafetyWBGTweather

Identifiers

PMID32630486
PMCPMC7353887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.