Department of Veterinary Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria.
Department of Veterinary Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Int J Biometeorol. 2021 Jul;65(7):1053-1067. doi: 10.1007/s00484-021-02087-z. Epub 2021 Feb 22.
The study aimed at comparing variations in body temperature values recorded using rectal digital, infrared, and mercury-in-glass thermometers in donkeys during the hot-dry season, prevailing under tropical savannah conditions. Thirty donkeys that served as subjects were divided into three groups of adults, yearlings, and foals. Values of the body temperature of each donkey were recorded bihourly, starting from 06:00 h till 18:00 h, by digital (5-cm depth of insertion), mercury-in-glass (3 cm depth), and infrared thermometers. The values obtained by each type of the thermometer were compared with those recorded using a 15-cm digital probe (Model HI935007, Hanna Instruments, range -50.0 to 150.0°C; accuracy ± 0.2°C) which served as the gold standard. Dry-bulb temperature (34.00 ± 0.50°C), temperature-humidity index (79.65 ± 0.15), and wet-bulb globe temperature (28.00 ± 0.50) index peaked at 14:00 h. The mean body temperatures for rectal probe, digital, mercury-in-glass, and infrared thermometers were 38.35 ± 0.11°C, 37.24 ± 0.04°C, 36.76 ± 0.06°C, and 36.92 ± 0.07°C, respectively. In comparison to the rectal probe, the mean bias for digital (-1.11 ± 0.05°C), mercury-in-glass (-1.59 ± 0.07°C), and infrared thermometers (-1.38 ± 0.07°C) was large. The Passing-Bablok regression plot demonstrated significant deviation from linearity (p < 0.01) when digital, infrared, and mercury-in-glass thermometers were compared to the rectal probe. The area under the curve (AUC) for digital (AUC: 0.7005 ± 0.01 [95%: 0.6853 - 0.7310], infrared (AUC: 0.6711 ± 0.01 [95%: 0.6322 - 0.7100], and mercury-in-glass (AUC: 0.6321 ± 0.01 [95%: 0.6001 - 0.7873] thermometers showed poor accuracy with low sensitivity. In conclusion, the use of digital, mercury-in-glass, and infrared thermometers in recording body temperature in donkeys during the hot-dry season underestimated the values. Their use in measuring body temperature may result in wrong diagnosis, and compromise the control of hyperthermia and diseases associated with thermoregulatory impairments in donkeys.
本研究旨在比较在热带稀树草原条件下的炎热干燥季节,使用直肠数字、红外和水银玻璃体温计测量驴的体温值时的变化。30 匹作为研究对象的驴被分为成年组、幼驹组和驹组。从 06:00 到 18:00,每头驴的体温值每两小时用数字(插入深度 5 厘米)、水银玻璃(插入深度 3 厘米)和红外体温计记录一次。每种温度计获得的值都与使用 15 厘米数字探头(型号 HI935007,Hanna Instruments,范围-50.0 至 150.0°C;精度±0.2°C)记录的值进行了比较,后者作为金标准。干球温度(34.00±0.50°C)、温湿度指数(79.65±0.15)和湿球 globe 温度(28.00±0.50)指数在 14:00 时达到峰值。直肠探头、数字探头、水银玻璃体温计和红外体温计的平均体温分别为 38.35±0.11°C、37.24±0.04°C、36.76±0.06°C 和 36.92±0.07°C。与直肠探头相比,数字(-1.11±0.05°C)、水银玻璃(-1.59±0.07°C)和红外温度计(-1.38±0.07°C)的平均偏差较大。当数字、红外和水银玻璃体温计与直肠探头进行比较时,Passing-Bablok 回归图显示出明显的线性偏差(p<0.01)。数字(AUC:0.7005±0.01[95%:0.6853-0.7310])、红外(AUC:0.6711±0.01[95%:0.6322-0.7100])和水银玻璃(AUC:0.6321±0.01[95%:0.6001-0.7873])的曲线下面积(AUC)显示出较低的准确性和敏感性。综上所述,在炎热干燥季节,使用数字、水银玻璃和红外体温计记录驴的体温会低估体温值。这些体温计在测量体温时可能会导致错误的诊断,并影响对驴的高热和与体温调节障碍相关疾病的控制。