ArticleJournal of physiological anthropology2025
Changes in physiological parameters and thermal comfort when wearing protective clothing in long-range aeromedical evacuation: a prospective, non-blinded, two-stage crossover self-controlled study.
Article in Journal of physiological anthropology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of the relationship between body surface temperature and behavioral responses in rams using infrared thermography.Open veterinary journal · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe thermos-physiological characteristics of medical personnel wearing protective clothing during prolonged activities under low oxygen pressure (LOP) and normal oxygen pressure (NOP) are crucial.
methodsThe average age of the 24 participants was 22.13 ± 1.849 years, with an average height of 168.58 ± 6.268 cm, an average weight of 61.62 ± 8.128 kg, and an average BMI of 21.59 ± 1.761 kg/m
resultsEach observation time point identified 120 min as the optimal protection time, with the greatest intergroup differences observed for both continuous (5/8 variables) and categorical (8/12 variables) parameters at this time point. Stepwise Regression analyses combining logistic and Cox regression identified six significant variables (P < 0.05): temperature, SpO₂, pulse pressure, thermal sensation vote (TSV), sultriness, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). K-M analysis revealed significantly higher probabilities of adverse outcomes in the LOP group compared to the NOP group: SpO₂ abnormalities (HR = 1.439, 95% CI: 1.026-2.017; log-rank P = 0.022), High TSV scores (HR = 2.463 [1.537-3.946]; P < 0.001), High sultriness scores (HR = 1.603 [1.260-2.040]; P < 0.001). RCS analysis of LOP group data showed significant temporal effects: RPE exhibited a nonlinear upward trend (overall P < 0.001; nonlinear P = 0.002), reaching an inflection point at 200 min. SpO₂ demonstrated linear decline (P = 0.002/0.143; inflection point = 200 min). Pulse pressure showed covariate-dependent effects: nonsignificant before adjustment (P = 0.430) but significant after adjustment (P = 0.008/0.891; inflection point = 200 min).
conclusionsOur research shows that 120 ~ 200 min is an optimal working time that does not affect the work efficiency of medical personnel.
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.