LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Tam, CC; O'Brien, SJ; Tompkins, DS; Bolton, FJ; Berry, L; Dodds, J; Choudhury, D; Halstead, F; Iturriza-Gómara, M; Mather, K; Rait, G; Ridge, A; Rodrigues, LC; Wain, J; Wood, B; Gray, JJ; IID2 Study Executive Committee, (2012)
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
BACKGROUND: Large-scale, prospective studies of infectious intestinal disease (IID) in developed countries are uncommon. Two studies of IID incidence and etiology have been conducted in the United Kingdom: the Infectious Intestinal Disease Study in England (IID1) in 1993-1996 and the Second Study of Infectious Intestinal Disease in the Community (IID2) in 2008-2009. We examined changes in etiology and diagnostic yield of IID cases over 15 years.
METHODS: Fecal samples submitted by IID cases were examined for a range of bacterial, viral, and protozoal pathogens using traditional and molecular microbiological methods. We calculated the percentage of specimens positive for each organism based on traditional methods and on traditional and molecular methods combined. We compared the distributions of organisms in the 2 studies.
RESULTS: For pathogens investigated in both studies, 40% of fecal samples submitted by cases in IID2 were positive compared with 28% in IID1. Viruses were most frequent among community cases in IID2. Campylobacter was the most common bacterial pathogen among cases presenting to healthcare. Major differences between the 2 studies were increases in the detection of norovirus and sapovirus and a decline Salmonella.
CONCLUSIONS: Most fecal specimens were negative for the pathogens tested in both studies, so new strategies are needed to close the diagnostic gap. Among known pathogens, effective control of norovirus, rotavirus, and Campylobacter remain high priorities. The reduction in nontyphoidal salmonellosis demonstrates the success of Europe-wide control strategies, notably an industry-led Salmonella control program in poultry in the United Kingdom.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article