The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Anthrax as a Biological Weapon, 2002: Updated Recommendations for Management
Open accessAbstract
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 Participants identified unpublished sources.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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Transmissibility of 1918 pandemic influenza
Mills, C. E., Robins, J. M., & Lipsitch, M. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03063 · Cited by 796
Raxibacumab for the Treatment of Inhalational Anthrax
Migone, T.-S., Subramanian, G. M., Zhong, J., Healey, L. M., Corey, A., Devalaraja, M., Lo, L., Ullrich, S., Zimmerman, J., Chen, A., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0810603 · Cited by 294
Recent developments in understanding the iron acquisition strategies of gram positive pathogens
Sheldon, J. R., & Heinrichs, D. E. (2015) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuv009 · Cited by 272
Complicated infections of skin and skin structures: when the infection is more than skin deep
DiNubile, M. J. (2004) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkh202 · Cited by 225
Asano, S. (2012) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hematopathology · doi:10.3960/jslrt.52.1 · Cited by 169
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
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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.