Department of Veterinary Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria.
Winfred Thomas Agricultural Research Station, Alabama A & M University, Normal, AL, 35762, USA.
J Small Anim Pract. 2023 May;64(5):330-336. doi: 10.1111/jsap.13589. Epub 2023 Feb 6.
The objective of the study was to determine the agreement between rectal, axillary and inguinal temperatures and to estimate the accuracy of these measurements in detecting hyperthermia and hypothermia in dogs presented at a veterinary teaching hospital in the tropical Guinea Savannah zone.
Prospectively, body temperature was measured in 610 dogs, using digital thermometry in the axillary, inguinal and rectal regions.
Overall, axillary and inguinal temperatures significantly underestimated rectal temperature, with a mean difference of -0.39 ± 0.02°C (95% confidence interval: -0.43 to -0.35; limit of agreement: -1.27 to 0.49) and - 0.34 ± 0.02°C (95% confidence interval, -0.37 to -0.30; limit of agreement: -1.15 to 0.47), respectively. The limits of agreement of axillary and inguinal temperatures were wide and above the pre-determined maximal acceptable difference of ±0.50°C recommended for clinical significance of rectal temperature in dogs. Bland-Altman plots showed that the confidence intervals of the mean differences of axillary and inguinal temperatures did not include the value zero, thereby indicating that the tested methods lack agreement with rectal temperature. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of hyperthermia with axillary temperature were 72.1% and 30.5%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity and specificity for the detection of hyperthermia with inguinal temperature were 77.9% and 26.2%, respectively. The magnitude of disagreement between axillary, inguinal and rectal temperatures was affected by age, breed and sex being slightly lower in mature, non-native breed and female dogs.
Axillary and inguinal temperature measurements in dogs significantly underestimated rectal temperature measurements by -0.39 ± 0.02°C and -0.34 ± 0.02°C, respectively. The results indicate that axillary and inguinal temperatures should not be used as a replacement for rectal temperature due to the wide limits of agreement. In addition, axillary and inguinal temperatures may not be suitable in detecting hyperthermia because the sensitivity were lower than the required set-point of 90.0% for clinical identification of hyperthermia.
本研究旨在确定直肠、腋窝和腹股沟温度之间的一致性，并评估这些测量方法在检测热带稀树草原地区兽医教学医院就诊犬的发热和低体温时的准确性。
前瞻性地，使用数字体温计测量了 610 只犬的腋窝、腹股沟和直肠温度。
总体而言，腋窝和腹股沟温度明显低估了直肠温度，平均差值分别为-0.39±0.02°C（95%置信区间：-0.43 至 -0.35；一致性界限：-1.27 至 0.49）和-0.34±0.02°C（95%置信区间：-0.37 至 -0.30；一致性界限：-1.15 至 0.47）。腋窝和腹股沟温度的一致性界限较宽，超过了推荐用于犬直肠温度临床意义的±0.50°C 的最大可接受差值。Bland-Altman 图显示，腋窝和腹股沟温度的平均差值置信区间不包括零值，表明所测试的方法与直肠温度缺乏一致性。腋窝温度检测发热的敏感性和特异性分别为 72.1%和 30.5%。相比之下，腹股沟温度检测发热的敏感性和特异性分别为 77.9%和 26.2%。腋窝、腹股沟和直肠温度之间的不一致程度受年龄、品种和性别影响，成熟、非本地品种和雌性犬的差异略小。
犬的腋窝和腹股沟温度测量值分别低估直肠温度测量值-0.39±0.02°C 和-0.34±0.02°C。结果表明，由于一致性界限较宽，腋窝和腹股沟温度不应替代直肠温度。此外，腋窝和腹股沟温度可能不适合检测发热，因为敏感性低于发热临床识别所需的 90.0%设定值。
