Agreement between auricular and rectal measurements of body temperature in healthy cats

Abstract

Measurement of body temperature is a routine part of the clinical assessment of a patient. However, this procedure may be time-consuming and stressful to most animals because the standard site of temperature acquisition remains the rectal mucosa. Although an increasing number of clinicians have been using auricular temperature to estimate core body temperature, evidence is still lacking regarding agreement between these two methods in cats. In this investigation, we evaluated the agreement between temperatures measured in the rectum and ear in 29 healthy cats over a 2-week period. Temperatures were measured in the rectum (using digital and mercury-in-glass thermometers) and ear once a day for 14 consecutive days, producing 406 temperature readings for each thermometer. Mean temperature and confidence intervals were similar between methods, and Bland-Altman plots showed small biases and narrow limits of agreement acceptable for clinical purposes. The interobserver variability was also checked, which indicated a strong correlation between two near-simultaneous temperature readings. Results are consistent with auricular thermometry being a reliable alternative to rectal thermometry for assessing core body temperature in healthy cats.

Measurement of body temperature in 300 dogs with a novel noncontact infrared thermometer on the cornea in comparison to a standard rectal digital thermometer

“…No study in veterinary medicine has examined the level of experience affecting assessment of body temperature. Auricular temperature measurement was performed with strong agreement by 2 investigators in dogs and cats, both were reported to be experienced with the device.…”

“…7 Following on from developments in human medicine, noncontact noninvasive thermometers may be the future for temperature assessment in animals. Several studies have evaluated infrared auricular thermometers in dogs, 2,7,11,12,16,19 cats, 36,37 and other species 1,17,20 with various results. Veterinary use of the noncontact infrared technology at other locations than the ear has so far only been performed in monkeys, 33,38,39 guinea pigs, 34 and horses, 40 all with poor results.…”

“…Most studies in animals investigating body temperature excluded abnormally low or high values 12,16,17,19,20,37 or investigated only hypothermic animals 2 when evaluating new thermometers. The present study included dogs with hypothermia, hyperthermia, and normal body temperature, which is needed to evaluate a device suitable for use in clinical patients.…”

Axillary temperature measurement: a less stressful alternative for hospitalised cats?

“…In veterinary medicine, axillary temperature measurement (ATM) and auricular temperature measurement have been compared with RTM in studies in dogs, cats, monkeys, deer, cattle, calves and swine but the results are conflicting (Myers and Henderson 1996, Drew 1998, Kunkle and others 2004, Greer and others 2007, Sikoski and others 2007, Garner 2011, Sousa and others 2011, Lamb and McBrearty 2013, Sousa and others 2013, Goic and others 2014, Gomart and others 2014, Smith and others 2015). In a previous study performed at the same institution, axillary temperature (AT) appeared to be correlated with and was less stressful than RT recording in dogs (Gomart and others 2014).…”

Measuring body temperature: how do different sites compare?

“…In contrast, when auricular thermometry was investigated in cats, the limits of agreement between ear and rectal measurements were much narrower and ranged from –0.5°C to 0.4°C, with the mean (sd) difference between the two sites being –0.06 (0.23)°C (Sousa and others 2013). This seemed acceptable in a clinical setting because the potential error in temperature readings remained below 0.5°C.…”