Table 2 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%
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)*

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.