Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,412

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Tularemia as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health Management

Dennis, David T., Inglesby, Thomas V., Henderson, Donald A., Bartlett, John G., Ascher, Michael S., Eitzen, Edward, Fine, Anne D., Friedlander, Arthur M., Hauer, Jerome, Layton, Marcelle, Lillibridge, Scott R., McDade, Joseph E., Osterholm, Michael T., O'Toole, Tara, Parker, Gerald, Perl, Trish M., Russell, Philip K., Tonat, Kevin, for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense·2001·JAMA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Working Group on Civilian Biodefense has developed consensus-based recommendations for measures to be taken by medical and public health professionals if tularemia is used as a biological weapon against a civilian population. PARTICIPANTS: The working group included 25 representatives from academic medical centers, civilian and military governmental agencies, and other public health and emergency management institutions and agencies. EVIDENCE: MEDLINE databases were searched from January 1966 to October 2000, using the Medical Subject Headings Francisella tularensis, Pasteurella tularensis, biological weapon, biological terrorism, bioterrorism, biological warfare, and biowarfare. Review of these references led to identification of relevant materials published prior to 1966. In addition, participants identified other references and sources. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Three formal drafts of the statement that synthesized information obtained in the formal evidence-gathering process were reviewed by members of the working group. Consensus was achieved on the final draft. CONCLUSIONS: A weapon using airborne tularemia would likely result 3 to 5 days later in an outbreak of acute, undifferentiated febrile illness with incipient pneumonia, pleuritis, and hilar lymphadenopathy. Specific epidemiological, clinical, and microbiological findings should lead to early suspicion of intentional tularemia in an alert health system; laboratory confirmation of agent could be delayed. Without treatment, the clinical course could progress to respiratory failure, shock, and death. Prompt treatment with streptomycin, gentamicin, doxycycline, or ciprofloxacin is recommended. Prophylactic use of doxycycline or ciprofloxacin may be useful in the early postexposure period.

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.285.21.2763

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 1,412

Metadata

Authors
Dennis, D. T., Inglesby, T. V., Henderson, D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher, M. S., Eitzen, E., Fine, A. D., Friedlander, A. M., Hauer, J., Layton, M., Lillibridge, S. R., McDade, J. E., Osterholm, M. T., O'Toole, T., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russell, P. K., Tonat, K., & for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense
Venue
JAMA
Published
2001-06-06
Volume
285
Issue
21
Pages
2763
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2167960824
Cited by
1,412
References
0
FWCI
19.87
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: Tularemia as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.285.21.2763
The paper
Dennis, D. T., Inglesby, T. V., Henderson, D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher, M. S., Eitzen, E., Fine, A. D., Friedlander, A. M., Hauer, J., Layton, M., Lillibridge, S. R., McDade, J. E., Osterholm, M. T., O'Toole, T., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russell, P. K., Tonat, K., & for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense. (2001). Tularemia as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health Management. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.21.2763

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.