Campylobacter source attribution by exposure assessment

Evers, Eric G.; Fels‐Klerx, H.J. van der; Nauta, Maarten; Schijven, Jack; Havelaar, Arie H.

doi:10.1504/ijram.2008.016151

Cited by 67 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Evers et al (2008) estimated the average exposure of the Dutch population to Campylobacter by risk assessment methods. For this purpose, the quantitative estimates of the occurrence of the bacteria from different sources (including food, water and animals) were combined with data on the frequency of contact (e.g.…”

Section: Conflicting Results From Epidemiological and Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the European Community, for the first time in 2005, the reported incidence of campylobacteriosis exceeded that of salmonellosis (Anonymous 2007). Although campylobacteriosis is largely perceived as a foodborne infection, with poultry meat being a common source, there is increasing evidence for other routes of transmission including direct animal contact, the consumption of raw food, and environmental sources (Kapperud et al 2003;Evers et al 2008;Studahl and Andersson 2000;Saeed, Harris, and DiGiacomo 1993;Adak et al 1995;Potter, Kaneene, and Hall 2003;Neimann et al 2003;Talsma et al 1999). Human-to-human spread is also observed, albeit at low frequencies (Musher and Musher 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immunity to Campylobacter: its role in risk assessment and epidemiology

Havelaar

Pelt²,

Ang³

et al. 2009

Critical Reviews in Microbiology

143

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Conflicting Results From Epidemiological and Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunity to Campylobacter: its role in risk assessment and epidemiology

Havelaar

Pelt²,

Ang³

et al. 2009

Critical Reviews in Microbiology

143

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Exposure assessments have been used in previous studies including quantifying the affect of sun exposure resulting in skin cancer [37] and managing food safety risks [38]. Campylobacter studies have used exposure assessments to estimate which sources are the most likely cause of human infection [39]. For example, to assess the importance of three key risk factors a study was performed in Switzerland to estimate the exposure to Campylobacter by age groups [40].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A population-based exposure assessment of risk factors associated with gastrointestinal pathogens: aCampylobacterstudy

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYA questionnaire survey was undertaken to determine the exposure of a study population to campylobacteriosis source risk factors (environmental, water, food) and results were stratified by age, population density and deprivation. Data were gathered using an exposure assessment carried out by telephone in the Grampian region of Scotland. Univariate analysis showed that children aged 5-14 years, living in low population density (0-44 . 4 persons/km 2 ) and affluent areas had elevated exposure to environmental and water risk factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that younger age groups and lower population density were significant indicators for most environmental risk factors. The results compared to reported disease incidence in Grampian showed that greater exposure to risk factors does not necessarily coincide with greater disease incidence for age groups, particularly for the 0-4 years age group. Further research is required to explain the relationship between exposure and disease incidence.

show abstract

“…Methods for source attribution of foodborne diseases include e.g. use of microbial subtyping (Hald et al, 2007;Little et al, 2010;Mullner et al, 2009a), comparative exposure assessment (Evers et al, 2008;FDA, 2003), analysis of foodborne disease outbreak data (Pires et al, 2010a;Pires et al, 2012) and systematic review of case-control investigations of sporadic illness (Domingues et al, 2012) (Domingues et al, 2011). However, for many pathogens sufficient data for source attribution are missing.…”

Section: Epidemiological Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the development of a risk ranking framework on biological hazards

2012

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The risk ranking exercises related to biological hazards undertaken in fourteen risk assessments of the EFSA/BIOHAZ Panel were reviewed. The aim was to suggest risk ranking tools to be used in future risk assessments and to analyse strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to risk ranking. It was concluded that there is no universal methodology for risk ranking. A conceptual risk ranking framework with nine separate stages is proposed to allow the adoption of the appropriate risk ranking methodology at each stage. Further, nine risk ranking tools developed by other institutions worldwide were described, although none of these could be recommended as the single risk ranking tool for the BIOHAZ Panel. It is recommended that the risk ranking exercise should take a structured approach and be transparently and consistently documented so to be reproducible. The importance of the proper correspondence between the time frame and the requirements of the risk ranking exercise was stressed as well as the interaction between the risk managers and the risk assessors in the definition of the risk ranking purpose and the presentation of the results. Furthermore the development of a risk ranking toolbox based on the proposed framework should be investigated, since such a toolbox would support the construction of consistent and transparent risk ranking models. SUMMARYThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asked the Panel on Biological Hazards i) to reflect on the lessons and experiences from risk ranking exercises undertaken by the BIOHAZ Panel, in particular describing successful approaches and challenges; ii) to suggest risk ranking tools related to biological hazards to be used in risk assessments; iii) to analyse strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to risk ranking on biological hazards.A comparative study of fourteen previous opinions adopted by the BIOHAZ Panel presented different types of risk ranking. These opinions differ widely in methodology reflecting that models are fit for purpose. The availability of data and the time frame can affect the selection of the methodology. Therefore there is no universal methodology for risk ranking. The harmonization in model structure and presentation of the results will increase consistency and transparency of the risk ranking models.Therefore the BIOHAZ Panel proposed a conceptual risk ranking framework comprising nine separate stages. The proposed framework allows the adoption of the appropriate risk ranking methodology by selecting different options at each stage. At the same time it provides the basis for a consistent presentation of model structure where all the components are clearly defined and the reasons for the selection of each component are described.Nine risk ranking tools developed by other institutions worldwide were described. They differ in their purpose, the degree of complexity, level of quantification, and approach to model construction. None of the available tools could be recommended to be used as universal use risk ranking tool f...

show abstract

Campylobacter source attribution by exposure assessment

Cited by 67 publications

References 19 publications

Immunity to Campylobacter: its role in risk assessment and epidemiology

Immunity to Campylobacter: its role in risk assessment and epidemiology

A population-based exposure assessment of risk factors associated with gastrointestinal pathogens: aCampylobacterstudy

Scientific Opinion on the development of a risk ranking framework on biological hazards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About