ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of two active warming techniques on body temperature in healthy, anesthetized dogs premedicated with acepromazine or dexmedetomidine: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of Different Warming Methods in Rabbits Subjected to Prolonged Pneumoperitoneum.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Temperature regulation in dogs is significantly impaired during general anesthesia. Glabrous skin on paws may facilitate thermoregulation from this area and is a potential target for interventions attenuating hypothermia. This pilot study aimed to compare efficacy of an innovative warming device placed on the front paws (AVAcore; AVA), with no warming methods (NONE) and conventional truncal warming methods (CONV; circulating water blanket/forced air warmer) on rectal temperature and anesthetic recovery times. Dogs were premedicated with acepromazine (ACE) or dexmedetomidine (DEX), induced with intravenous propofol and maintained on isoflurane. The change in rectal temperature was statistically separated into three segments: 15 minutes following premedication, prior to induction (T0-T15), 15 minutes following anesthetic induction into isoflurane maintenance (T15-T30), and >30 minutes of isoflurane maintenance (>T30). Overall, when warming treatments and time points were combined, the decrease in rectal temperature from baseline was significantly greater with ACE than DEX (P < 0.05). When ACE and DEX were analyzed separately, changes in rectal temperatures did not differ between warming techniques at T0-T15 and T15-T30 (P > 0.05). However, at >T30 minutes, slopes of the temperature change differed between all three warming device groups, despite whether ACE or DEX was administered; temperature decreased least in CONV whereas the NONE had the largest decreases (P < 0.05). At >T30, when warming devices were considered separately, slopes of the temperature change in AVA and NONE did not differ between ACE and DEX (P > 0.050). However, in CONV, DEX had a significantly faster increase in slope than did ACE (P < 0.05). No differences in recovery times were observed between techniques or premedications (P > 0.05). Although CONV provided the most stable thermoregulation in anesthetized dogs, the AVAcore also moderated decreases in body temperature associated with general anesthesia despite premedication, providing an additional warming technique in dogs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.