Cited by 105Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Multilaboratory Survey To Evaluate Salmonella Prevalence in Diarrheic and Nondiarrheic Dogs and Cats in the United States between 2012 and 2014

Open access
Reimschuessel, Renate, Grabenstein, Michael, Guag, Jake, Nemser, Sarah M., Song, Kyunghee, Qiu, Junshan, Clothier, Kristin A., Byrne, Barbara A. +24 more·2017·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Eleven laboratories collaborated to determine the periodic prevalence of Salmonella in a population of dogs and cats in the United States visiting veterinary clinics. Fecal samples (2,965) solicited from 11 geographically dispersed veterinary testing laboratories were collected in 36 states between January 2012 and April 2014 and tested using a harmonized method. The overall study prevalence of Salmonella in cats (3 of 542) was <1%. The prevalence in dogs (60 of 2,422) was 2.5%. Diarrhea was present in only 55% of positive dogs; however, 3.8% of the all diarrheic dogs were positive, compared with 1.8% of the nondiarrheic dogs.Salmonella-positive dogs were significantly more likely to have consumed raw food (P= 0.01), to have consumed probiotics (P= 0.002), or to have been given antibiotics (P= 0.01). Rural dogs were also more likely to be Salmonella positive than urban (P= 0.002) or suburban (P= 0.001) dogs. In the 67 isolates, 27 unique serovars were identified, with three dogs having two serovars present. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 66 isolates revealed that only four of the isolates were resistant to one or more antibiotics. Additional characterization of the 66 isolates was done using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Sequence data compared well to resistance phenotypic data and were submitted to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). This study suggests an overall decline in prevalence of Salmonella-positive dogs and cats over the last decades and identifies consumption of raw food as a major risk factor for Salmonella infection. Of note is that almost half of the Salmonella-positive animals were clinically nondiarrheic.

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 · 10.1128/jcm.02137-16

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Diarrhoea does not appear to be a typical feature of Salmonella-shedding dogs.

    “Diarrhoea does not appear to be a typical feature of Salmonella‐shedding dogs (Brisdon et al. 2006, Finley et al. 2007, Reimschuessel et al. 2017), although clinical salmonellosis has been reported in association with raw feeding (Morley et al. 2006).”

    From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as Reimschuessel et al. 2017

    The Discussion (Diarrhea) says nearly half of Salmonella-positive dogs were nondiarrheic, supporting the point that shedding can occur without diarrhea. But the Results (Prevalence and risk factors) report diarrhea in 31 of 60 positive dogs and find diarrheic dogs more than twice as likely to test positive. Calling diarrhea atypical overstates what this study shows. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies in dogs have identified raw feeding as a major risk factor for Salmonella shedding.

    “Indeed, studies in dogs have identified raw feeding as a major risk factor for Salmonella shedding (Leonard et al. 2011, Reimschuessel et al. 2017).”
  • Human-associated Salmonella serovars have commonly been isolated from the faeces of dogs.

    “Furthermore, such human‐associated serovars have commonly been isolated from the faeces of dogs (Reimschuessel et al. 2017), including raw‐fed dogs (Lefebvre et al. 2008, Lenz et al. 2009, Leonard et al. 2011).”
  • Dogs and cats can shed Salmonella without exhibiting any clinical signs of disease.

    “dogs and cats can shed Salmonella without exhibiting any clinical signs of disease.97,102,103”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reimschuessel, R., Grabenstein, M., Guag, J., Nemser, S. M., Song, K., Qiu, J., Clothier, K. A., Byrne, B. A., Marks, S. L., Cadmus, K., Pabilonia, K., Sanchez, S., Rajeev, S., Ensley, S., Frana, T. S., Jergens, A. E., Chappell, K. H., Thakur, S., Byrum, B., Cui, J., Zhang, Y., Erdman, M. M., Rankin, S. C., Daly, R., Das, S., Ruesch, L., Lawhon, S. D., Zhang, S., Baszler, T., Diaz-Campos, D., Hartmann, F., & Okwumabua, O.
Affiliations
  • Center for Veterinary Medicine (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Infectious Disease, Athens Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Ohio Department of Agriculture (US)
  • United States Department of Agriculture (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • South Dakota State University (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Washington State University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Reimschuessel, Renate
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2017-05
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
1350-1368
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2589107924
Cited by
105
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) (submittedVersion)
Funders
HHS | U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
Salmonella, dogs, cats, prevalence, diarrhea, raw food diet, probiotics, antibiotic use, serotypes, antimicrobial resistance, whole genome sequencing, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, risk factors, urban-rural differences
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Feed, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cats, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dogs, Feces, Female, Foodborne Diseases, Male, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Salmonella, Salmonella Infections, Animal, United States

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