Validity of Field Expedient Devices to Assess Core Temperature During Exercise in the Cold
Bagley JR, Judelson DA, Spiering BA, Beam WC, Bartolini JA, Washburn BV, Carney KR, Muñoz CX, Yeargin SW, Casa DJ. Validity of field expedient devices to assess core temperature during exercise in the cold. Aviat Space Environ Med 2011; 82:1098–1103.
Introduction: Exposure to cold environments affects human performance and physiological function. Major medical organizations recommend rectal temperature (TREC) to evaluate core body temperature (TCORE) during exercise in the cold; however, other field expedient devices claim to measure TCORE. The purpose of this study was to determine if field expedient devices provide valid measures of TCORE during rest and exercise in the cold. Methods: Participants included 13 men and 12 women (age = 24 ± 3 yr, height = 170.7 ± 10.6 cm, mass = 73.4 ± 16.7 kg, body fat = 18 ± 7%) who reported being healthy and at least recreationally active. During 150 min of cold exposure, subjects sequentially rested for 30 min, cycled for 90 min (heart rate = 120–140 bpm), and rested for an additional 30 min. Investigators compared aural (TAUR), expensive axillary (TAXLe), inexpensive axillary (TAXLi), forehead (TFOR), gastrointestinal (TGI), expensive oral (TORLe), inexpensive oral (TORLi), and temporal (TTEM) temperatures to TREC every 15 min. Researchers used mean difference between each device and TREC (i.e., mean bias) as the primary criterion for validity. Results: TAUR, TAXLe, TAXLi, TFOR, TORLe, TORLi, and TTEM provided significantly lower measures compared to TREC and fell below our validity criterion. TGI significantly exceeded TREC at three of eleven time points, but no significant difference existed between mean TREC and TGI across time. Only TGI achieved our validity criterion and compared favorably to TREC. Conclusion: TGI offers a valid measurement with which to assess TCORE during rest and exercise in the cold; athletic trainers, mountain rescuers, and military medical personnel should avoid other field expedient devices in similar conditions.
Introduction: Exposure to cold environments affects human performance and physiological function. Major medical organizations recommend rectal temperature (TREC) to evaluate core body temperature (TCORE) during exercise in the cold; however, other field expedient devices claim to measure TCORE. The purpose of this study was to determine if field expedient devices provide valid measures of TCORE during rest and exercise in the cold. Methods: Participants included 13 men and 12 women (age = 24 ± 3 yr, height = 170.7 ± 10.6 cm, mass = 73.4 ± 16.7 kg, body fat = 18 ± 7%) who reported being healthy and at least recreationally active. During 150 min of cold exposure, subjects sequentially rested for 30 min, cycled for 90 min (heart rate = 120–140 bpm), and rested for an additional 30 min. Investigators compared aural (TAUR), expensive axillary (TAXLe), inexpensive axillary (TAXLi), forehead (TFOR), gastrointestinal (TGI), expensive oral (TORLe), inexpensive oral (TORLi), and temporal (TTEM) temperatures to TREC every 15 min. Researchers used mean difference between each device and TREC (i.e., mean bias) as the primary criterion for validity. Results: TAUR, TAXLe, TAXLi, TFOR, TORLe, TORLi, and TTEM provided significantly lower measures compared to TREC and fell below our validity criterion. TGI significantly exceeded TREC at three of eleven time points, but no significant difference existed between mean TREC and TGI across time. Only TGI achieved our validity criterion and compared favorably to TREC. Conclusion: TGI offers a valid measurement with which to assess TCORE during rest and exercise in the cold; athletic trainers, mountain rescuers, and military medical personnel should avoid other field expedient devices in similar conditions.
Keywords: cycling; outdoor medicine; thermoregulation
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: 01 December 2011
- The peer-reviewed monthly journal, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine (ASEM) provides contact with physicians, life scientists, bioengineers, and medical specialists working in both basic medical research and in its clinical applications. It is the most used and cited journal in its field. ASEM is distributed to more than 80 nations.
To access volumes 86 to present, please click here. - Information for Authors
- Submit a Paper
- Subscribe to this Title
- Membership Information
- Information for Advertisers
- Submit Articles
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
Receive new issue alert- Access Key
- Free content
- Partial Free content
- New content
- Open access content
- Partial Open access content
- Subscribed content
- Partial Subscribed content
- Free trial content