The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trends in indigenous foodborne disease and deaths, England and Wales: 1992 to 2000
Open accessAbstract
Background: Commitment to food safety is evidenced by high profile governmental initiatives around the globe. To measure progress towards targets, policy makers need to know the baseline from which they started. Aim: To describe the burden (mortality, morbidity, new presentations to general practice, hospital admissions, and hospital occupancy) and trends of indigenous foodborne disease (IFD) in England and Wales between 1992 and 2000. Methods: Routinely available surveillance data, special survey data, and hospital episode statistics were collated and arithmetic employed to estimate the burden and trends of IFD in England and Wales. Adjustments were made for underascertainment of disease through national surveillance and for foreign travel. The final estimates were compared with those from the USA. Results: In 1995 there were an estimated 2 365 909 cases, 21 138 hospital admissions, and 718 deaths in England and Wales due to IFD. By 2000 this had fallen to 1 338 772 cases, 20 759 hospital admissions, and 480 deaths. In terms of disease burden the most important pathogens were campylobacters, salmonellas, Clostridium perfringens , verocytotoxin producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) O157, and Listeria monocytogenes . The ratio of food related illness in the USA to IFD in England and Wales in 2000 was 57:1. Taking into account population rates, this ratio fell to 11:1 and converged when aetiology and disease severity were considered. Conclusion: Reducing IFD in England and Wales means tackling campylobacter. Lowering mortality rates however also requires better control and prevention of salmonellas, Cl perfringens , L monocytogenes , and VTEC O157.
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
Havelaar, A. H., Kirk, M. D., Torgerson, P. R., Gibb, H. J., Hald, T., Lake, R. J., Praet, N., Bellinger, D. C., de Silva, N. R., Gargouri, N., et al. (2015) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001923 · Cited by 2,067
“Similar studies are available from the UK [31], Australia [32], France [33] and Canada [34].”
ResultFoodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Unspecified Agents
Scallan, E., Griffin, P. M., Angulo, F. J., Tauxe, R. V., & Hoekstra, R. M. (2011) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid1701.p21101 · Cited by 1,050
Campylobacters as zoonotic pathogens: A food production perspective
Humphrey, T., O'Brien, S., & Madsen, M. (2007) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.01.006 · Cited by 733
Self-citationThomas, M. K., Murray, R., Flockhart, L., Pintar, K., Pollari, F., Fazil, A., Nesbitt, A., & Marshall, B. (2013) · Foodborne Pathogens and Disease · doi:10.1089/fpd.2012.1389 · Cited by 440
Disease burden of foodborne pathogens in the Netherlands, 2009
Havelaar, A. H., Haagsma, J. A., Mangen, M.-J. J., Kemmeren, J. M., Verhoef, L. P. B., Vijgen, S. M. C., Wilson, M., Friesema, I. H. M., Kortbeek, L. M., van Duynhoven, Y. T. H. P., et al. (2012) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.03.029 · Cited by 380
Metadata
- Authors
- Adak, G. K., Long, S. M., & O’Brien, S. J.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 832-841
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2156962949
- Cited by
- 480
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Trends in indigenous foodborne disease and deaths, England and Wales: 1992 to 2000. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.51.6.832
- The paper
- Adak, G. K., Long, S. M., & O’Brien, S. J. (2002). Trends in indigenous foodborne disease and deaths, England and Wales: 1992 to 2000. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.51.6.832
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.