Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 997

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Plague as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health Management

Inglesby, Thomas V., Dennis, David T., Henderson, Donald A., Bartlett, John G., Ascher, Michael S., Eitzen, Edward, Fine, Anne D., Friedlander, Arthur M., Hauer, Jerome, Koerner, John F., Layton, Marcelle, McDade, Joseph, Osterholm, Michael T., O'Toole, Tara, Parker, Gerald, Perl, Trish M., Russell, Philip K., Schoch-Spana, Monica, Tonat, Kevin, for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense·2000·JAMA

Abstract

The Working Group on Civilian Biodefense has developed consensus-based recommendations for measures to be taken by medical and public health professionals following the use of plague as a biological weapon against a civilian population.The working group included 25 representatives from major academic medical centers and research, government, military, public health, and emergency management institutions and agencies.MEDLINE databases were searched from January 1966 to June 1998 for the Medical Subject Headings plague, Yersinia pestis, biological weapon, biological terrorism, biological warfare, and biowarfare. Review of the bibliographies of the references identified by this search led to subsequent identification of relevant references published prior to 1966. In addition, participants identified other unpublished references and sources. Additional MEDLINE searches were conducted through January 2000.The first draft of the consensus statement was a synthesis of information obtained in the formal evidence-gathering process. The working group was convened to review drafts of the document in October 1998 and May 1999. The final statement incorporates all relevant evidence obtained by the literature search in conjunction with final consensus recommendations supported by all working group members.An aerosolized plague weapon could cause fever, cough, chest pain, and hemoptysis with signs consistent with severe pneumonia 1 to 6 days after exposure. Rapid evolution of disease would occur in the 2 to 4 days after symptom onset and would lead to septic shock with high mortality without early treatment. Early treatment and prophylaxis with streptomycin or gentamicin or the tetracycline or fluoroquinolone classes of antimicrobials would be advised.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.283.17.2281

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 997

Metadata

Authors
Inglesby, T. V., Dennis, D. T., Henderson, D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher, M. S., Eitzen, E., Fine, A. D., Friedlander, A. M., Hauer, J., Koerner, J. F., Layton, M., McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., O'Toole, T., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russell, P. K., Schoch-Spana, M., Tonat, K., & for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-05-03
Volume
283
Issue
17
Pages
2281
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2131558932
Cited by
997
References
0
FWCI
27.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Plague as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.283.17.2281
The paper
Inglesby, T. V., Dennis, D. T., Henderson, D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher, M. S., Eitzen, E., Fine, A. D., Friedlander, A. M., Hauer, J., Koerner, J. F., Layton, M., McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., O'Toole, T., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russell, P. K., Schoch-Spana, M., Tonat, K., & for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense. (2000). Plague as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health Management. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.17.2281

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.