ArticleTropical animal health and production2026
Comparative evaluation of thermography, infrared, mercury, digital, and ecological thermometers for body temperature measurements in cattle.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the global ban on mercury thermometers due to their toxicological risks, alternative devices such as digital, ecological (galinstan-based), and infrared thermometers, as well as infrared thermography, have emerged for veterinary use. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and agreement of these alternatives compared to the mercury thermometer for measuring body temperature in cattle. Twenty-four clinically healthy or stable cattle were monitored twice daily over five consecutive days. Rectal temperatures were recorded using mercury, digital, and ecological thermometers. Infrared thermometers and thermographic cameras were used to assess cutaneous temperatures at the forehead, eyes, axillae, and perineum. Correlation analyses (Pearson or Spearman) and Bland-Altman plots were applied to determine agreement. Infrared thermography and infrared thermometer measurements at the eyes and perineum exhibited the highest correlations but failed to meet clinical agreement standards. In contrast, both ecological and digital thermometers showed strong correlation (r ≥ 0.85) and acceptable agreement limits with the mercury thermometer (mean difference < 0.3 °C; SD < 0.5 °C), indicating their suitability as substitutes in clinical practice. Despite the promise of infrared techniques for non-invasive screening, further validation is needed before clinical implementation.
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.