Cited by 123Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchInfection Control in HealthcareSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of Clostridium difficile in dogs and the household environment

Open access
WEESE, J. S., FINLEY, R., REID-SMITH, R. R., JANECKO, N., ROUSSEAU, J.·2010·Epidemiology and Infection

Abstract

Clostridium difficile may be an emerging community-associated pathogen but little is known about its sources of exposure. This study evaluated C. difficile contamination in households and colonization of pets. C. difficile was isolated from 44/836 (5.3%) sites in 26/84 (31%) households. Ribotype 027 was the most common (25%) environmental strain. C. difficile was isolated from 14/139 (10%) dogs. Living with an immunocompromised individual was associated with C. difficile colonization in dogs. All toxigenic strains identified in pets have been isolated from humans in Ontario. C. difficile was isolated concurrently from dogs and the environment in four households, but in all cases canine and environmental ribotypes were different. C. difficile was relatively common in households, suggesting that exposure to this pathogen may be a regular event. There was no evidence that dogs are a significant source of household C. difficile contamination.

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 · 10.1017/s0950268809991312

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multidrug-resistant bacteria of public health importance have been found in people and companion animals.

    “Multidrug-resistant bacteria of public health importance have been found in people and companion animals. 20,21”

    From Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections (2015) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Results report that toxigenic C. difficile strains found in companion animals had also been isolated from humans in Ontario, and the Introduction identifies C. difficile as a cause of human disease. However, the paper does not describe those strains as multidrug-resistant; its Methods describe ribotyping and toxin testing, not resistance testing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Pets owned by people with compromised immune systems are more likely to be colonized with Clostridium difficile than those owned by people with competent immune systems.

    “pets owned by people with compromised immune systems are more likely to be colonized with Clostridium difficile than those owned by people with competent immune systems. 20”

    From Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections (2015) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Results report that dogs living with a self-identified immunocompromised person were 7.9 times as likely to shed C. difficile as other dogs. The claim extends that finding from dogs to pets generally; the reported comparison does not establish the same association for other pets. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
WEESE, J. S., FINLEY, R., REID-SMITH, R. R., JANECKO, N., & ROUSSEAU, J.
Affiliations
  • Ontario Veterinary College (CA)
  • Public Health Agency of Canada (CA)
  • University of Guelph (CA)
Corresponding author
WEESE, J. S.
Venue
Epidemiology and Infection
Published
2009-12-02
Volume
138
Issue
8
Pages
1100-1104
ISSN
  • 0950-2688 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-4409
OpenAlex
W2166800741
Cited by
120
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epidemiology and Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Public Health Agency
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Keywords
Clostridium difficile, dogs, household environment, environmental contamination, ribotype 027, immunocompromised patients, community-associated infections, zoonotic transmission, toxigenic strains, Ontario
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacterial Toxins, Carrier State, Disease Reservoirs, Dogs, Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous, Environmental Microbiology, Feces, Female, Male, Zoonoses, Bacterial Typing Techniques, Clostridioides difficile

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