Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How accurate are dog armpit and groin temps compared to rectal temps
By Zakari, F. O. & Omontese, B. O.·Published in Journal of Small Animal Practice·2023·Department of Veterinary Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Jos Jos Nigeria·View original on Crossref →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of axillary and inguinal temperature with rectal temperature in dogs at a veterinary teaching hospital
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study measured body temperatures in 610 dogs using rectal, axillary (under the armpit), and inguinal (in the groin) methods to see how well they agreed. It found that both axillary and inguinal temperatures were lower than rectal temperatures, meaning they could miss signs of fever (hyperthermia). The accuracy of these alternative methods was not reliable enough for detecting fever, especially since they often underestimated the actual temperature. Therefore, it's best to use rectal temperature measurements for accurate readings in dogs.
People also search for: dog fever symptoms · how to take a dog's temperature · axillary temperature in dogs · inguinal temperature measurement in dogs
Abstract
ObjectivesThe 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.Materials and MethodsProspectively, body temperature was measured in 610 dogs, using digital thermometry in the axillary, inguinal and rectal regions.ResultsOverall, 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.Clinical SignificanceAxillary 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.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on Crossref: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13589