2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.06.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors associated with the clinical diagnosis of foot and mouth disease during the 2001 epidemic in the UK

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
25
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Vosloo et al (2002) and Sangare et al (2004) proved that intensive livestock production is highly vulnerable to the effect of FMD. The signs and lesions observed in sick animals were comparable with those reported elsewhere in literature (Radostits et al 2007;Quinn et al 2005;McLaws et al 2006). Age-specific seropositivitity study revealed that seropositivity increases with age.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Vosloo et al (2002) and Sangare et al (2004) proved that intensive livestock production is highly vulnerable to the effect of FMD. The signs and lesions observed in sick animals were comparable with those reported elsewhere in literature (Radostits et al 2007;Quinn et al 2005;McLaws et al 2006). Age-specific seropositivitity study revealed that seropositivity increases with age.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…We chose to create a series of monthly networks because this allowed us to represent the longest plausible period from introduction to first detection of a highly contagious disease. The age of oldest FMD lesions observed in the UK 2001 outbreak was 14 days old (Mclaws et al., 2005) and we added another 14 days to account for an incubation period of 2–14 days (Garland and Donaldson, 1990). Beyond this timeframe, it is unlikely that an epidemic would persist without being identified (Kiss et al., 2006), so considering movement networks of longer duration would artificially increase resulting maximal epidemic size estimates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, a conservative estimate based on data from the UK 2001 epidemic was used, i.e., five SI per detected herd was assumed for the numbers of inspections based on passive surveillance (23). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%