ArticleJournal of athletic training2025
Polar Life Pod Cooling versus Ice Sheet Cooling following Simulated Military Conditioning Exercise.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextExertional heatstroke (EHS) is a leading cause of death in athletes and the warfighter. Polar Life Pod (PLP) and ice sheet cooling (ISC) are two of the more portable cooling techniques to treat EHS and show promise for treating patients when large volumes of water or immersion devices (e.g., tubs) are not available. "Ideal" cooling rates consistent with excellent EHS prognoses exceed 0.16°C/min while "acceptable" rates are between >0.08°C/min and 0.15°C/min. No research has compared the cooling effectiveness of the Polar Life Pod (PLP), a body bag-like device, to ISC following simulated military conditioning exercise.
objectiveDetermine if PLP or ISC reduced rectal temperature (TREC) differently and at 'acceptable' or 'ideal' cooling rates.
designRandomized, counterbalanced, crossover study.
settingLaboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsFourteen participants (10 men, 4 women; age: 22±3y; mass:73.8±17.8kg; ht:168.5±7.8cm).
interventionsParticipants donned a military uniform and rucksack and marched in the heat (temperature=∼37.5°C; relative humidity=∼40%) until TREC was 39.5°C. Then they undressed and were wrapped in bed sheets presoaked in ice water (≤0.89±0.33°C) or lay in PLP filled with water (151.4±3.8L; 4.22±0.95°C) until TREC was 38°C.
main outcome measuresTREC and cooling durations; calculated TREC cooling rates.
resultsParticipants exercised in similar clothing, environmental conditions, and durations (PLP=50.5±9.9min, ISC=48.9±10.9min, P=0.38). PLP cooling rates differed from ISC and were 'ideal' whilst ISC rates were 'acceptable' (PLP=0.22±0.08°C/min; ISC=0.11±0.05°C/min, P<0.001).
conclusionsPLP lowered TREC twice as quickly as ISC and at rates consistent with favorable EHS outcomes. PLP's faster cooling rates were likely due to it utilizing conductive and convective cooling, treating a larger body surface area, and providing a larger heat sink than ISC. PLP and ISC can be utilized to treat EHS, but PLP is preferred because it reduced TREC faster, utilized less ice, and required the same number of personnel and coolers as ISC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.