Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42147589›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Perioperative Temperature Monitoring in Anesthesia: A Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice.

Jason Jogie, Joshua A Jogie, Kenisha Phillip

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jason JogieIntensive Care Unit, Port of Spain General Hospital, Port of Spain, TTO.
Joshua A JogieOccupational Health Unit, St. James Medical Complex, Port of Spain, TTO.
Kenisha PhillipOccupational Health Unit, St. James Medical Complex, Port of Spain, TTO.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perioperative hypothermia remains common during anesthesia and surgery. It is associated with higher rates of surgical site infection, blood loss, transfusion, cardiac events, postanesthetic shivering, delayed recovery, and longer hospital stay. Temperature monitoring is therefore an important part of safe anesthesia care when it is linked to thermal management. This article is a narrative review of perioperative temperature monitoring in anesthesia. The aim was to review the physiology of perioperative heat loss, the clinical effects of hypothermia, the performance of common monitoring sites and devices, and the practical role of monitoring in prevention and management. A structured literature review was performed using PubMed. Search terms included combinations of "perioperative temperature monitoring," "anesthesia," "hypothermia," "core temperature," "esophageal temperature," "nasopharyngeal temperature," "bladder temperature," "zero-heat-flux," "warming," and "prewarming." Boolean operators were used to refine the search. English-language articles relevant to adult perioperative anesthesia care were reviewed. The final manuscript included 43 references, comprising randomized trials, observational studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and guideline-based articles. The evidence shows that core temperature monitoring is more reliable than peripheral or skin-based methods for detecting perioperative hypothermia. Esophageal and nasopharyngeal probes remain practical and accurate during general anesthesia. Bladder temperature is useful in selected patients, especially during longer procedures, but may be less reliable when urine flow is low. Newer zero-heat-flux forehead systems offer a useful noninvasive option across different perioperative phases, although agreement with invasive core sites is good rather than perfect. Evidence also shows that measured temperature can support timely warming or adjustment of warming, better maintenance of normothermia, and lower rates of temperature-related complications. Perioperative temperature should be measured routinely in patients at risk and interpreted together with active thermal management. The method should be chosen according to the patient, the type of anesthesia, and the stage of care. Monitoring is most useful when started early and paired with active warming and clear institutional protocols. More high-quality studies are still needed to compare newer devices, define acceptable accuracy thresholds in different settings, and determine the best monitoring pathway from the preoperative area to recovery.

Indexed as

anesthesiacore temperatureinadvertent perioperative hypothermiapatient safetyperioperative temperature monitoring

Identifiers

PMID42147589
PMCPMC13178365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.