Observational studyEuropean journal of medical research2025
Comparison of core temperature monitoring methods during cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), precise core temperature monitoring is critical for patient safety. This prospective study evaluated the agreement among three core temperature monitoring modalities: nasopharyngeal temperature (Tnaso), zero-heat flux cutaneous thermometer (TSpotOn), and oesophageal temperature (Teso).
methodsTemperatures were measured simultaneously; agreement between monitoring sites was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measures including mean bias, 95% limits of agreement, and confidence intervals, alongside Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC). The proportion of paired differences within the clinically acceptable limit of 0.5 °C was reported.
resultsThe mean difference between Tnaso and TSpotOn was -0.04 ± 0.33 °C (95% limits: -0.69 to 0.62), and between Tnaso and Teso was 0.02 ± 0.35 °C (95% limits: -0.66 to 0.71), with LCCC for both comparisons at 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.94), indicating substantial agreement. However, up to 14% of Teso pairs exceeded the 0.5 °C threshold, suggesting potential clinical relevance. Notable rapid temperature decline and subsequent rebound were observed post-HIPEC at Tnaso and TSpotOn sites.
conclusionAll three monitoring methods correlated strongly overall, but Teso exhibited phase-dependent discrepancies, particularly after HIPEC. These findings support tailoring core temperature measurement site selection with attention to the target organ, especially in laparotomy-based HIPEC procedures.
trial registrationThe study was registered in the clinical trials registry cris.nih.go.kr (Registration Number: KCT0003980).
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.