ArticleBMC veterinary research2015
Longitudinal study of Clostridium difficile shedding in raccoons on swine farms and conservation areas in Ontario, Canada.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2020Review
- Article
- Environmental Factors Associated with the Carriage of Bacterial Pathogens in Norway Rats.EcoHealth · 2018Article
- Livestock-associated methicillin-resistantCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
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
backgroundClostridium difficile is an important enteropathogen affecting humans, domestic animals, and wildlife. The objectives of this study were to 1) compare the prevalence and characteristics of C. difficile isolated from the feces of raccoons trapped on swine farms and conservation sites, and 2) investigate the role of raccoons as potential reservoirs for host-adapted strains of C. difficile using a longitudinal study. Fecal swabs were collected from raccoons at 5 conservation sites and 5 swine farms, once every five weeks, from May to November, 2012.
resultsClostridium difficile was isolated from 9 % (38/444) of samples, from 12 % (37/302) of raccoons, from all 10 sites. A total of 19 different ribotypes were identified, including 5 ribotypes that matched recognized international designations and which are also found in humans (001, 014, 056, 078, and 103). Location type (farm or conservation area) was not associated with C. difficile status (P = 0.448) but only 3 ribotypes (014, 056, and 078) were found in both location types. The prevalence of ribotype 078 was significantly higher on farms (4 %; 9/220) compared to conservation sites (1 %; 2/225) (P = 0.034). Only one of 108 raccoons caught in multiple sessions was positive on more than one occasion.
conclusionsWe found no evidence to support the hypothesis that raccoons harbour host-adapted strains of C. difficile; rather, it appears that raccoons transiently acquire C. difficile from the environment. Raccoons are unlikely to be maintaining C. difficile, but because we detected C. difficile strains that have the potential to cause illness in humans and livestock, and because raccoons can move relatively large distances, they may play a role in the dissemination of pathogenic ribotypes of C. difficile throughout the environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.