ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2003
Outbreaks of food borne diseases in the Lazio region, Italy: the results of epidemiological field investigations.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Food safety at home: knowledge and practices of consumers.Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMore thorough information about risks, exposures and vehicles of food borne diseases can be obtained from epidemiological field investigations than from infectious disease reports or laboratory data.
methodsWe analysed the results of 410 field investigations of food borne disease outbreaks reported from 1996 to 2000 and conducted as cohort studies.
resultsThe incidence of food borne outbreaks increased from 0.8/100,000 in 1996 to 2.0 in 1999, as did the incidence of salmonellosis (from 16/100,000 to 21 in the same period) and diarrhoea episodes reported by laboratories (from 12/100,000 in 1997 to 29 in 1999). Of the food borne disease outbreaks, 264 (64.4%) occurred in private homes; 5 (1.2%) in hospitals; 31 (7.6%) in canteens and refectories, 84 (20.5%) in restaurants, 41 of which occurred during special functions. The home outbreaks exposed few people (average of 7), had high attack rates (61.7% average) and a high proportion of known aetiology (66%), while food borne disease outbreaks in canteens and restaurants (during special functions) exposed many people (300 and 81, respectively), had medium attack rates (19.7 and 34.5%, respectively) and a higher proportion of confirmed vehicles (50 and 49%, respectively), compared to those occurring at home (21%). Salmonella spp. was the most frequent agent detected in each setting (67% of confirmed cases). The most frequent vehicles at home were mushrooms and sweets containing eggs and cream; in canteens, meat and vegetables and in restaurants, shellfish.
conclusionsOutbreak characteristics varied according to the setting. This implies the need for a different approach of field investigations, and different preventive measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12952146What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.