Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 424

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Increasing Rates of Vibriosis in the United States, 1996–2010: Review of Surveillance Data From 2 Systems

Open access
Newton, Anna, Kendall, Magdalena, Vugia, Duc J., Henao, Olga L., Mahon, Barbara E.·2012·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitors vibriosis through 2 surveillance systems: the nationwide Cholera and Other Vibrio Illness Surveillance (COVIS) system and the 10-state Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet). COVIS conducts passive surveillance and FoodNet conducts active surveillance for laboratory-confirmed Vibrio infections. METHODS: We summarized Vibrio infections (excluding toxigenic V. cholerae O1 and O139) reported to COVIS and FoodNet from 1996 through 2010. For each system, we calculated incidence rates using US Census Bureau population estimates for the surveillance area. RESULTS: From 1996 to 2010, 7700 cases of vibriosis were reported to COVIS and 1519 to FoodNet. Annual incidence of reported vibriosis per 100,000 population increased from 1996 to 2010 in both systems, from 0.09 to 0.28 in COVIS and from 0.15 to 0.42 in FoodNet. The 3 commonly reported Vibrio species were V. parahaemolyticus, V. vulnificus, and V. alginolyticus; both surveillance systems showed that the incidence of each increased. In both systems, most hospitalizations and deaths were caused by V. vulnificus infection, and most patients were white men. The number of cases peaked in the summer months. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance data from both COVIS and FoodNet indicate that the incidence of vibriosis increased from 1996 to 2010 overall and for each of the 3 most commonly reported species. Epidemiologic patterns were similar in both systems. Current prevention efforts have failed to prevent increasing rates of vibriosis; more effective efforts will be needed to decrease rates.

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 · 10.1093/cid/cis243

Cites

2 of 2 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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 424

Metadata

Authors
Newton, A., Kendall, M., Vugia, D. J., Henao, O. L., & Mahon, B. E.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2012-06-01
Volume
54
Issue
suppl_5
Pages
S391-S395
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2150732101
Cited by
424
References
2
FWCI
15.00
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: Increasing Rates of Vibriosis in the United States, 1996–2010: Review of Surveillance Data From 2 Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/cis243
The paper
Newton, A., Kendall, M., Vugia, D. J., Henao, O. L., & Mahon, B. E. (2012). Increasing Rates of Vibriosis in the United States, 1996–2010: Review of Surveillance Data From 2 Systems. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis243

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.