ArticleExperimental physiology2026
Accuracy of next-generation wireless skin temperature sensors during exercise-heat stress.
Article in Experimental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of ceiling fan use on cardiovascular autonomic function during simulated indoor overheating in bed-resting older adults.Experimental physiology · 2026Trial
- Accuracy of next-generation wireless skin temperature sensors during exercise-heat stress.Experimental physiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Skin temperature is fundamental in characterising human thermoregulatory responses. Wired probes, although accurate, restrict movement and are impractical outside laboratory settings. The iButton (DS1922L; Maxim Integrated, USA) is a widely used wireless alternative but does not meet the precision recommended by ISO 9886 and permits only retrospective data retrieval. A recently developed wireless sensor, the eTemp Performance (BodyCAP, France), claims to address these limitations but has not been validated independently. Here, we compared the eTemp and iButton against a wired thermocouple reference (SST-1; Physitemp, USA) during rest, exercise and recovery in the heat [mean (SD): 35.0 (0.5)°C, 40.6 (1.5)% relative humidity]. Twenty-six adults (10 women) completed seated rest (15 min), cycling at fixed heat production (30 min) and passive recovery (15 min). Mean skin temperature was calculated using the Ramanathan four-site formula. Across all periods, the eTemp showed a small negative bias (mean difference, -0.04°C; 95% limits of agreement, -0.33°C to 0.25°C; concordance correlation coefficient, 0.986), whereas the iButton showed a small positive bias (+0.11°C; 95% limits of agreement, -0.23°C to 0.46°C; concordance correlation coefficient, 0.974). The eTemp met all a priori acceptability thresholds for mean skin temperature. The iButton met the acceptability threshold for mean bias in all periods and was statistically equivalent to the reference; however, the 95% confidence interval on the upper limit of agreement marginally exceeded 0.5°C during exercise, recovery and overall. These findings provide the first independent validation of the eTemp Performance sensor and support the use of both wireless devices for mean skin temperature measurement during exercise-heat stress, notwithstanding the known limitations in accuracy of the iButton against the ISO 9886 standard.
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.