2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-5877(99)00107-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cryptosporidia on dairy farms and the role these farms may have in contaminating surface water supplies in the northeastern United States

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
54
2
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 87 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
6
54
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Previously a Bayesian approach has proven its potential to circumvent this gold standard problem when 3 [11,26] or 4 tests [5] were used to diagnose infection. The four-test approach was also used in this study and yielded a Cryptosporidium calf prevalence estimate of 17% (95% PI: 0.1-0.28), which is comparable to observations by others in calves of the same age category [16,20,25,32]. The 95% PI might even underestimate the prevalence due to intra-herd correlation not being taken into account.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Previously a Bayesian approach has proven its potential to circumvent this gold standard problem when 3 [11,26] or 4 tests [5] were used to diagnose infection. The four-test approach was also used in this study and yielded a Cryptosporidium calf prevalence estimate of 17% (95% PI: 0.1-0.28), which is comparable to observations by others in calves of the same age category [16,20,25,32]. The 95% PI might even underestimate the prevalence due to intra-herd correlation not being taken into account.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…The transmission of cryptosporidia (3,33). Travel, particularly international travel, is a recognized risk factor for cryptosporidiosis (20).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This level of spatial integration makes site-specific recommendations for improving water quality difficult. A common monitoring strategy is sampling above and below a suspected pollution source within a given watershed (Ong et al, 1996;Sischo et al, 2000;CRWQCB, 2003). The primary outcome is to assign the difference between the below and above pollutant load to all the land use practices being carried out by the land owner, but such data has little ability to assign priorities to potential remediation efforts within the land parcel itself or to differentiate between components of the land use that may be discharging differing pollutant amounts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%