Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How temperature microchips compare to rectal temps in cats
By Goig, Marta et al.·Published in Frontiers in veterinary science·2023·GCTO MSD Spain, Spain·View original on PubMed →
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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Correlation of temperature-sensing microchip and rectal temperature measurements in cats.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A study found that temperature-sensing microchips can be a good alternative to taking a cat's temperature rectally, which can be stressful for them. Researchers measured the temperatures of normal, hospitalized, and sedated cats using both methods and found that the readings from the microchips closely matched those from rectal thermometers. The differences were small enough that the microchip readings can be considered reliable. This means that using a microchip could help reduce stress during vet visits while still providing accurate temperature readings.
People also search for: cat temperature measurement · microchip temperature cat · why is my cat stressed at the vet
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rectal temperature (RT) is the reference standard for clinical evaluation of body temperature in mammals. However, the use of a rectal thermometer to measure temperature can cause stress and other problems, especially in cats. There is a need for clinical techniques that reduce both stress and defensive behavior as part of the provision of better medical care. Subcutaneous temperature-sensing identification microchips fulfil the current legal requirements and provide a reading of subcutaneous temperature (MT). METHODS: The clinical study tried to determine whether there is agreement between MT and RT in normal ( = 58), hospitalized ( = 26) and sedated/anesthetized ( = 36) cats. Three measurements were taken using both methods (MT and RT) in each cat. Correlation between MT and RT, and differences between MT and RT, were estimated for pairs of data-points from the same individual, and all data pairs in each group were considered overall. RESULTS: There was a strong positive correlation between MT and RT ( = 0.7 to 1.0) ( < 0.0005). The mean differences () were always negative and although statistically significant, thesevalues are likely of no biological importance. The overallwas ‑0.1°C in normal cats ( < 0.0005), -0.1°C in hospitalized cats ( = 0.001) and -0.1°C in sedated/anesthetized cats ( = 0.001). The limits of agreement between MT and RT appear narrow enough for MT to be acceptable estimate of RT. The overall limits of agreement (95%) were ‑0.71°C and 0.53°C (in normal cats); ‑0.51°C and 0.34°C (in hospitalized cats) and ‑0.60°C and 0.42°C (in sedated/anesthetized cats). DISCUSSION: MT may provide a good alternative to RT measurement in cats. However, this study was mostly performed in animals that were normothermic. Therefore, further studies in larger groups of cats under different conditions are needed to compare trends and assess variation with time.
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 PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38260203/