Comparison of Esophageal and Intranasal Temperature Measurement in Anesthetized Dogs

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of an intranasal thermometer with an esophageal thermometer for obtaining core body temperature in anesthetized dogs. DESIGN: Prospective single-center observational study. SETTING: Private referral veterinary hospital. ANIMALS: Seventy-three dogs undergoing anesthesia for elective procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Body temperature was measured using an intranasal thermometer and an esophageal thermometer. Results obtained by the two methods were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A linear mixed-effects model showed a statistically significant difference between the two methods of measurement, with the intranasal method showing a mean temperature reading 0.2°C (0.3°F) lower than the esophageal method (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.131-0.225, β = -0.27; p < 0.001). Covariates such as neuter status, body weight, age, or American Society of Anesthesiologists class did not influence temperature readings. A Bland-Altman plot showed a mean difference (bias) of -0.2°C (-0.3°F), with most differences falling within the limits of agreement (±1.3°C [±2°F]), emphasizing the clinically acceptable range of variation between the two methods. Post hoc analysis using a clinically acceptable margin of 0.5°C (0.9°F) showed that the intranasal method was clinically noninferior to the esophageal method, with a 95% CI showing a mean difference of 0.13°C-0.23°C (0.20°F-0.34°F). Equivalence testing confirmed that temperature differences between the two methods were within the clinical margin of ±0.5°C (±0.9°F). CONCLUSIONS: Although intranasal temperature measurement underestimates core body temperature by 0.2°C (0.3°F) (95% CI: 0.131-0.225) compared with esophageal measurement, the difference is generally clinically insignificant. Given that esophageal temperature is indicative of core body temperature, intranasal temperature measurement appears to be another reasonable surrogate for core body temperature measurement in anesthetized dogs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care
Published
2026-04-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.70101
Primary Topic
Thermal Regulation in Medicine
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Esophageal and Intranasal Temperature Measurement in Anesthetized Dogs

Rebecca Reader, Kiko Bracker, Brandi E. Lauer, Jolene Babyak
Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care
Thermal Regulation in Medicine
article

Comparison of Esophageal and Intranasal Temperature Measurement in Anesthetized Dogs

Rebecca Reader, Kiko Bracker, Brandi E. Lauer, Jolene Babyak
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of an intranasal thermometer with an esophageal thermometer for obtaining core body temperature in anesthetized dogs. DESIGN: Prospective single-center observational study. SETTING: Private referral veterinary hospital. ANIMALS: Seventy-three dogs undergoing anesthesia for elective procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Body temperature was measured using an intranasal thermometer and an esophageal thermometer. Results obtained by the two methods were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A linear mixed-effects model showed a statistically significant difference between the two methods of measurement, with the intranasal method showing a mean temperature reading 0.2°C (0.3°F) lower than the esophageal method (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.131-0.225, β = -0.27; p < 0.001). Covariates such as neuter status, body weight, age, or American Society of Anesthesiologists class did not influence temperature readings. A Bland-Altman plot showed a mean difference (bias) of -0.2°C (-0.3°F), with most differences falling within the limits of agreement (±1.3°C [±2°F]), emphasizing the clinically acceptable range of variation between the two methods. Post hoc analysis using a clinically acceptable margin of 0.5°C (0.9°F) showed that the intranasal method was clinically noninferior to the esophageal method, with a 95% CI showing a mean difference of 0.13°C-0.23°C (0.20°F-0.34°F). Equivalence testing confirmed that temperature differences between the two methods were within the clinical margin of ±0.5°C (±0.9°F). CONCLUSIONS: Although intranasal temperature measurement underestimates core body temperature by 0.2°C (0.3°F) (95% CI: 0.131-0.225) compared with esophageal measurement, the difference is generally clinically insignificant. Given that esophageal temperature is indicative of core body temperature, intranasal temperature measurement appears to be another reasonable surrogate for core body temperature measurement in anesthetized dogs.

Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care
MSPCA-Angell (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Thermal Regulation in Medicine
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.