Limits of agreement comparison of oesophageal, intestinal and rectal core temperature measurements
| Reference | Oesophageal vs intestinal | Rectal vs intestinal | Oesophageal vs rectal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LoA | Bias ±95% | LoA | Bias ±95% | LoA | Bias ±95% | |
| LoA, limits of agreement. | ||||||
| It would be expected with 95% probability that for a new individual from the studied population, the difference between two methods of core temperature measurement will fall within these limits. | ||||||
| Bias ±95% represents the mean difference between the two methods of measurement (eg, mean of oesophageal minus intestinal temperatures) and the SD of the differences multiplied by 1.96 represent 95% of differences. | ||||||
| *Significant systematic bias (p<0.05, identified by paired t test) between methods of measurement. | ||||||
| †Significant negative heteroscedasticity (p<0.05, identified by Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient). | ||||||
| ‡Data represent the mesor of cosinor analysis—that is, mean of the oscillation over 24 h of circadian measurement. | ||||||
| Kolka et al13 | −0.45 to +0.41 | −0.02 (0.43) | −0.27 to +0.65 | +0.18 (0.47)* | −0.54 to +0.12 | −0.21 (0.33)*† |
| Sparling et al14 | +0.08 to +1.44 | +0.76 (0.68)* | ||||
| Lee et al17 | −0.40 to +0.34 | −0.03 (0.37) | −0.41 to +0.27 | −0.07 (0.34)* | −0.35 to +0.45 | +0.05 (0.40) |
| Edwards et al18‡ | −0.60 to +0.20 | −0.20 (0.40)* | ||||
| Gant et al19 | −0.37 to +0.07 | −0.15 (0.22)* | ||||