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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access

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.

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 · 10.1128/jcm.02137-16

Cites

108 of 108 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?

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

Show all 107 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Osman FB Bahri LEL . 1970. Contribution a l'etude du reservoir animal de Salmonella. I. Enquete chez les chiens de differentes regions de Tunisie. Arch Inst Pasteur (Tunis)47:9.
  2. Sakazaki R Nakaya R . 1964. Epidemiological and ecological studies on salmonellae in Japan. End Dis Bull Nagasaki Univ6:9.
  3. Mayer H Kolb A Gehring H . 1976. Epidemiologische Untersuchungen bei einer Salmonellenzootie bei Diensthunden der Polizei. Prakt Tierarzt57:289–295.
  4. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2013. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals; approved standard–4th ed. Document VET01-A4 (replaces M31-A3). CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2012. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 22nd informational supplement. Document M100-S22. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals; approved standard—3rd ed. Document M31-A3, p 116. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2013. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals; 2nd informational supplement. Document VET01-S2E. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  8. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2014. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 24th informational supplement. Document M100-S24. CLSI, Wayne, PA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–104 of 104

Metadata

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 › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › 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