Table 1.
Device Specifications.
Table 2.
Agreement and validity of each tested device compared to the thermistor in each condition (n = 30).
Fig 1.
Mean skin temperature (n = 30) of all tested devices during rest (4 devices), exercise (3 devices) and recovery (4 devices).
Post-hoc analysis displayed as *Significant differences between iButtons and thermistors (p < 0.001); #Significant differences between infrared thermometer and thermistors (p < 0.001); †Significant differences between infrared camera and thermistors (p < 0.001). Results are presented as the mean ± SD.
Fig 2.
Bland—Altman plots during rest illustrating the mean bias (dashed line) and 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ± 1.96 · modified standard deviation: dotted lines) for thermistors vs iButtons (a), thermistors vs infrared thermometer (b) thermistors vs infrared camera (c).
Each participant is represented by a unique colour or shape (n = 30). Grey band indicates the practically meaningful, a priori acceptable mean bias (± 0.5°C).
Fig 3.
Bland—Altman plots during exercise in the heat illustrating the mean bias (dashed line) and 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ± 1.96 · modified standard deviation: dotted lines) for thermistors vs iButtons (a), thermistors vs infrared thermometer (b).
Each participant is represented by a unique colour or shape (n = 30). Grey band indicates the practically meaningful, a priori acceptable mean bias (± 0.5°C).
Fig 4.
Bland—Altman plots during recovery illustrating the mean bias (dashed line) and 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ± 1.96 · modified standard deviation: dotted lines) for thermistors vs iButtons (a), thermistors vs infrared thermometer (b) thermistors vs infrared camera (c).
Each participant is represented by a unique colour or shape (n = 30). Grey band indicates the practically meaningful, a priori acceptable mean bias (± 0.5°C).