CONTEXT: Data from electrothermometers are used to determine therapeutic modality usage, but the value of experimental results is only as good as the data collected. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and validity of 3 electrothermometers from 2 manufacturers. DESIGN: A 3 x 4 x 17 factorial with repeated measures on 2 factors. Independent variables were trial (1, 2, 3), thermometer (mercury thermometer, Iso-Thermex calibrated from -50 degrees C to 50 degrees C, Iso-Thermex calibrated from -20 degrees C to 80 degrees C, and Datalogger), and time (17). SETTING: Human Performance Research Center. INTERVENTION(S): Eighteen thermocouples were inserted through the wall of a foamed polystyrene cooler, and 6 were connected to each of the 3 electrothermometers. The cooler was positioned on a stir plate and filled with room-temperature water (18.4 degrees C). A mercury thermometer was immersed into the water bath. Measurements of the water bath were taken every 10 seconds for three 3-minute trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The temperature variability of 3 electrothermometers was taken from a calibrated mercury thermometer. RESULTS: The Iso-Thermex electrothermometers did not differ statistically from each other in uncertainty (validity error +/- reliability error = 0.06 degrees C +/- 0.03 degrees C +/- 0.03 degrees C +/- 0.02 degrees C, P < .05), but both differed from the Datalogger (0.64 degrees C +/- 0.20 degrees C, P < .05). The Datalogger temperature was consistently higher than the mercury thermometer temperature. CONCLUSIONS: The Iso-Thermex electrothermometers were more stable than the Datalogger, and values were within the published uncertainty (+/-0.1 degrees C) when used with PT-6 thermocouples. The Datalogger we used had an uncertainty of measurement greater than that indicated in the user's manual (approximately +/-0.52 degrees C). Uncertainty of +/-0.84 degrees C can significantly influence the interpretation of results when intramuscular temperature changes are usually less than 5 degrees C.
CONTEXT: Data from electrothermometers are used to determine therapeutic modality usage, but the value of experimental results is only as good as the data collected. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and validity of 3 electrothermometers from 2 manufacturers. DESIGN: A 3 x 4 x 17 factorial with repeated measures on 2 factors. Independent variables were trial (1, 2, 3), thermometer (mercury thermometer, Iso-Thermex calibrated from -50 degrees C to 50 degrees C, Iso-Thermex calibrated from -20 degrees C to 80 degrees C, and Datalogger), and time (17). SETTING:Human Performance Research Center. INTERVENTION(S): Eighteen thermocouples were inserted through the wall of a foamed polystyrene cooler, and 6 were connected to each of the 3 electrothermometers. The cooler was positioned on a stir plate and filled with room-temperature water (18.4 degrees C). A mercury thermometer was immersed into the water bath. Measurements of the water bath were taken every 10 seconds for three 3-minute trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The temperature variability of 3 electrothermometers was taken from a calibrated mercury thermometer. RESULTS: The Iso-Thermex electrothermometers did not differ statistically from each other in uncertainty (validity error +/- reliability error = 0.06 degrees C +/- 0.03 degrees C +/- 0.03 degrees C +/- 0.02 degrees C, P < .05), but both differed from the Datalogger (0.64 degrees C +/- 0.20 degrees C, P < .05). The Datalogger temperature was consistently higher than the mercury thermometer temperature. CONCLUSIONS: The Iso-Thermex electrothermometers were more stable than the Datalogger, and values were within the published uncertainty (+/-0.1 degrees C) when used with PT-6 thermocouples. The Datalogger we used had an uncertainty of measurement greater than that indicated in the user's manual (approximately +/-0.52 degrees C). Uncertainty of +/-0.84 degrees C can significantly influence the interpretation of results when intramuscular temperature changes are usually less than 5 degrees C.
Authors: Mark A Merrick; Matthew R Mihalyov; Jennifer L Roethemeier; Mitchell L Cordova; Christopher D Ingersoll Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: William J. Myrer; Kimberly A. Myrer; Gary J. Measom; Gilbert W. Fellingham; Stacey L. Evers Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Justin H Rigby; Rebecca M Taggart; Kelly L Stratton; George K Lewis; David O Draper Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 2.860