Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,027

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Anthrax as a Biological Weapon, 2002: Updated Recommendations for Management

Open access
Inglesby, Thomas V., O'Toole, Tara, Henderson, Donald A., Bartlett, John G., Ascher, Michael S., Eitzen, Edward, Friedlander, Arthur M., Gerberding, Julie, Hauer, Jerome, Hughes, James, McDade, Joseph, Osterholm, Michael T., Parker, Gerald, Perl, Trish M., Russell, Philip K., Tonat, Kevin, for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense·2002·JAMA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review and update consensus-based recommendations for medical and public health professionals following a Bacillus anthracis attack against a civilian population. PARTICIPANTS: The working group included 23 experts from academic medical centers, research organizations, and governmental, military, public health, and emergency management institutions and agencies. EVIDENCE: MEDLINE databases were searched from January 1966 to January 2002, using the Medical Subject Headings anthrax, Bacillus anthracis, biological weapon, biological terrorism, biological warfare, and biowarfare. Reference review identified work published before 1966. Participants identified unpublished sources. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The first draft synthesized the gathered information. Written comments were incorporated into subsequent drafts. The final statement incorporated all relevant evidence from the search along with consensus recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Specific recommendations include diagnosis of anthrax infection, indications for vaccination, therapy, postexposure prophylaxis, decontamination of the environment, and suggested research. This revised consensus statement presents new information based on the analysis of the anthrax attacks of 2001, including developments in the investigation of the anthrax attacks of 2001; important symptoms, signs, and laboratory studies; new diagnostic clues that may help future recognition of this disease; current anthrax vaccine information; updated antibiotic therapeutic considerations; and judgments about environmental surveillance and decontamination.

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.287.17.2236

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 1,027

Metadata

Authors
Inglesby, T. V., O'Toole, T., Henderson, D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher, M. S., Eitzen, E., Friedlander, A. M., Gerberding, J., Hauer, J., Hughes, J., McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russell, P. K., Tonat, K., & for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense
Venue
JAMA
Published
2002-05-01
Volume
287
Issue
17
Pages
2236
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2150832852
Cited by
1,027
References
0
FWCI
25.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Anthrax as a Biological Weapon, 2002: Updated Recommendations for Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.287.17.2236
The paper
Inglesby, T. V., O'Toole, T., Henderson, D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher, M. S., Eitzen, E., Friedlander, A. M., Gerberding, J., Hauer, J., Hughes, J., McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russell, P. K., Tonat, K., & for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense. (2002). Anthrax as a Biological Weapon, 2002: Updated Recommendations for Management. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.17.2236

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.