Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42261995›Full record

ArticleExperimental physiology2026

Accuracy of next-generation wireless skin temperature sensors during exercise-heat stress.

Aaron J E Bach, Norman R Morris, Surendran Sabapathy, David N Borg, Isabella Ennever, Pramod Sharma, Fergus K O'Connor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

7 authors.

Aaron J E BachSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5581-5018
Norman R MorrisSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4054-4662
Surendran SabapathySchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1267-6035
David N BorgSchool of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0152-571X
Isabella EnneverSchool of Pharmacy and Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7313-603X
Pramod SharmaSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5602-4496
Fergus K O'ConnorSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9509-7682

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ExerciseHeat-Shock ResponseSkin TemperatureWireless TechnologyAdultBody Temperature RegulationFemaleHot TemperatureHumansMaleYoung Adultambulatory monitoringbody temperature regulationergometryhot temperaturereproducibility of resultswearable electronic device

Identifiers

PMID42261995
PMCPMC13394553

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.