ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2025
Conductive heat loss in simulated outdoor settings: a preliminary experimental human study.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the nature and magnitude of conductive heat loss in outdoor environments. Although manikin studies provide reproducible and consistent data, they may not fully reflect all aspects of human physiological responses. This preliminary study assessed heat loss in volunteers under simulated outdoor conditions, with a focus on heat flux toward the ground, which primarily represents heat conduction.
methodsAn experimental study was conducted with seven healthy volunteers in a thermoclimatic chamber. A two-phase rescue scenario was employed in which a person immobilized on a spineboard was placed directly on the ground (Phase 1) and then lifted upwards under windy conditions (Phase 2). Heat flux was measured via heat flow sensors placed on the volunteers' skin. The driving force for conductive heat loss was determined on the basis of the temperature difference between the skin and the spineboard. A linear regression model was used to analyse the relationship between heat flux and temperature difference.
resultsThe mean skin-spineboard temperature difference was 23,6 ± 2,9 °C and increased over time. The mean heat flux through the contact area was 467 ± 97 W/m2. A significant increase in heat flux to 560 ± 45 W/m2 was recorded in Phase 2 of the experiment. Multiplication of the heat flux per area times the contact area resulted in a mean heat loss of 159 Watts. In both phases, a strong linear relationship was found between back skin temperature and heat flux. In Phase 1, the relationship was positive (β=+31 W/m² per 1 °C decrease in skin temperature; R²=0.986; p < 0.001), whereas in Phase 2, it was negative (β=-20 W/m² per 1 °C decrease; R²=0.946; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe heat flux through the skin-to-spineboard interface, which is mainly conductive loss, is one-fourth greater than the heat flux through the skin of anterior body. Heat conduction towards the ground accounts for approximately one-fifth of the total heat loss. The heat flux through the skin-to-spineboard contact surface may increase when the spineboard is lifted from the ground in windy conditions.
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.