↓ Skip to main content

Skin Temperature Measurement Using Contact Thermometry: A Systematic Review of Setup Variables and Their Effects on Measured Values

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Skin Temperature Measurement Using Contact Thermometry: A Systematic Review of Setup Variables and Their Effects on Measured Values
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Braid A. MacRae, Simon Annaheim, Christina M. Spengler, René M. Rossi

Abstract

Background: Skin temperature (Tskin) is commonly measured usingTskinsensors affixed directly to the skin surface, although the influence of setup variables on the measured outcome requires clarification.Objectives:The two distinct objectives of this systematic review were (1) to examine measurements from contactTskinsensors considering equilibrium temperature and temperature disturbance, sensor attachments, pressure, environmental temperature, and sensor type, and (2) to characterise the contactTskinsensors used, conditions of use, and subsequent reporting in studies investigating sports, exercise, and other physical activity.Data sources and study selection:For the measurement comparison objective, Ovid Medline and Scopus were used (1960 to July 2016) and studies comparing contactTskinsensor measurementsin vivoor using appropriate physical models were included. For the survey of use, Ovid Medline was used (2011 to July 2016) and studies using contact temperature sensors for the measurement of humanTskinin vivoduring sport, exercise, and other physical activity were included.Study appraisal and synthesis methods:For measurement comparisons, assessments of risk of bias were made according to an adapted version of the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Comparisons of temperature measurements were expressed, where possible, as mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Meta-analyses were not performed due to the lack of a common reference condition. For the survey of use, extracted information was summarised in text and tabular form.Results:For measurement comparisons, 21 studies were included. Results from these studies indicated minor (<0.5°C) to practically meaningful (>0.5°C) measurement bias within the subgroups of attachment type, applied pressure, environmental conditions, and sensor type. The 95% LoA were often within 1.0°C forin vivostudies and 0.5°C for physical models. For the survey of use, 172 studies were included. Details aboutTskinsensor setup were often poorly reported and, from those reporting setup information, it was evident that setups widely varied in terms of type of sensors, attachments, and locations used.Conclusions:Setup variables and conditions of use can influence the measured temperature from contactTskinsensors and thus key setup variables need to be appropriately considered and consistently reported.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 16%
Student > Bachelor 31 15%
Student > Master 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 51 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 41 20%
Sports and Recreations 22 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 46 22%
Unknown 64 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,002,010
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,104
of 13,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,974
of 440,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#39
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.