Ocular thermography and rectal thermometry show similar diagnostic performance for detecting abnormal body temperature in dogs.

Abnormal readings from ocular or rectal thermometry increase suspicion of abnormal temperature; normal readings should not override clinical concern.

This single-shelter observational study evaluated the diagnostic performance of ocular thermography (eye temperature, ET) via infrared thermography and rectal thermometry (RT) for detecting abnormal body temperature in dogs. A total of 238 visit-level observations from 121 dogs (89 puppy visits, 149 adult visits) without clinical ocular disease were analyzed using a hierarchical Bayesian latent-class model that accounted for two subpopulations (puppies and adults), dog-level random effects, and between-test dependence. Both tests demonstrated high specificity but low-to-moderate sensitivity. Posterior median sensitivities were 0.40 for ET and 0.32 for RT, while specificities were 0.94 for ET and 0.99 for RT. These findings indicate that abnormal readings from either test meaningfully increase the probability of true abnormal core body temperature, but normal readings carry limited informational value and should not override clinical suspicion. Combining tests in parallel (OR rule) maximized negative predictive value, while series combination (AND rule) maximized positive predictive value. Overall, ocular thermography and rectal thermometry showed similar diagnostic performance. Clinically, both methods are better at confirming normal temperature than detecting abnormal temperature. Practitioners should treat abnormal readings as clinically relevant but recognize that normal readings do not reliably exclude fever or hypothermia when clinical signs suggest otherwise.

This summary was distilled by AI and may occasionally misinterpret data. Confirm critical details with the primary literature before clinical application.