ArticleJournal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
Comparison of Esophageal and Intranasal Temperature Measurement in Anesthetized Dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001). 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
objectiveTo compare the accuracy of an intranasal thermometer with an esophageal thermometer for obtaining core body temperature in anesthetized dogs.
designProspective single-center observational study.
settingPrivate referral veterinary hospital. ANIMALS: Seventy-three dogs undergoing anesthesia for elective procedures.
interventionsBody temperature was measured using an intranasal thermometer and an esophageal thermometer. Results obtained by the two methods were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsA linear mixed-effects model showed a statistically significant difference between the two methods of measurement, with the intranasal method showing a mean temperature reading 0.2°C (0.3°F) lower than the esophageal method (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.131-0.225, β = -0.27; p < 0.001). Covariates such as neuter status, body weight, age, or American Society of Anesthesiologists class did not influence temperature readings. A Bland-Altman plot showed a mean difference (bias) of -0.2°C (-0.3°F), with most differences falling within the limits of agreement (±1.3°C [±2°F]), emphasizing the clinically acceptable range of variation between the two methods. Post hoc analysis using a clinically acceptable margin of 0.5°C (0.9°F) showed that the intranasal method was clinically noninferior to the esophageal method, with a 95% CI showing a mean difference of 0.13°C-0.23°C (0.20°F-0.34°F). Equivalence testing confirmed that temperature differences between the two methods were within the clinical margin of ±0.5°C (±0.9°F).
conclusionsAlthough intranasal temperature measurement underestimates core body temperature by 0.2°C (0.3°F) (95% CI: 0.131-0.225) compared with esophageal measurement, the difference is generally clinically insignificant. Given that esophageal temperature is indicative of core body temperature, intranasal temperature measurement appears to be another reasonable surrogate for core body temperature measurement in anesthetized 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.