Farm practices to control<i>E. coli</i>O157 in young cattle - A randomised controlled trial

Ellis‐Iversen, Johanne; Smith, Richard P.; Winden, Steven van; Paiba, G. A.; Watson, Eamon; Snow, L. C.; Cook, A. J. C.

doi:10.1051/vetres:2007041

Cited by 43 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 411 farms distributed throughout England and Wales were contacted by phone to assess willingness to participate in the study and eligibility of the herd by questionnaire. Farms were eligible, if they retained more than 60 cattle including 20 young stock, had a bovine tuberculosisnegative status, and the premises were not shared with any public access enterprises such as open farms, Bed & Breakfast or farm-shops including selling unpasteurized milk (Ellis-Iversen et al, 2008).…”

Section: Examples Of Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The required samples sizes were 48 control farms and 48 farms in each intervention group to detect a risk ratio of 5 at 80% power with 95% confidence, when using a design effect of 13.22 to adjust for a group cluster size of 20 pat samples per group per visit. The design effect was estimated from data originating from a longitudinal study using the same sampling approach along with individual animal sampling (Ellis-Iversen et al, 2008).…”

Section: Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to evaluate the measure of effect, univariable as treated analysis (AT) and intention to treat (IT) was used (Ellis-Iversen et al, 2008).…”

Section: Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration

Sargeant

O’Connor

Gardner

et al. 2010

Journal of Food Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest that similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996, with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22-item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants at each stage of a trial. An explanation and elaboration document not only defines and discusses the importance of each of the items, but also provides examples of how this information could be supplied in a publication. Differences between human and livestock populations necessitate modifications to the CONSORT statement to maximize its usefulness for RCTs involving livestock. These have been addressed in an extension of the CONSORT statement titled the REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized control trials for livestock and food safety. The modifications made for livestock trials specifically addressed the common use of group housing and group allocation to intervention in livestock studies; the use of deliberate challenge models in some trials and the common use of non-clinical outcomes, such as contamination with a foodborne pathogen. In addition, the REFLECT statement for RCTs in livestock populations proposed specific terms or further clarified terms as they pertained to livestock studies. KeywordsRandomized trials, livestock, challenge studies and standards RightsWorks produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The content of this document is not copyrighted. AbstractConcerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest that similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996, with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22-item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants...

show abstract

Section: Examples Of Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration

Sargeant

O’Connor

Gardner

et al. 2010

Journal of Food Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The review was limited by lack of high quality studies, inconsistent results, and conduct of studies in an artificial environment. One RCT not included in the SR showed improved hygiene (dry bedding and cohorting of animals by herd) decreased fecal shedding of E. coli O157 (P < 0.05) [41]. A recent RCT concluded that soil solarization in feeding pens significantly decreased E. coli O157: H7 contamination of soil (P < 0.05) [42].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions for preventing diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome: systematic review

Thomas

Elliott

2013

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) may follow infection with Shiga-toxin-producing organisms, principally E. coli O157: H7 (STEC), causing high morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to identify interventions to prevent diarrhea-associated HUS.MethodsSystematic search of the literature for relevant systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and public health guidelines.ResultsOf 1097 animal and 762 human studies, 18 animal studies (2 SRs, 2 reviews, plus 14 RCTs) and 6 human studies (3 SRs, plus 3 RCTs) met inclusion criteria. E. coli O157: H7 Type III secreted protein vaccination decreased fecal E. coli O157 shedding in cattle (P = 0.002). E. coli O157: H7 siderophore receptor and porin proteins (SRP) vaccines reduced fecal shedding in cows (OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.73) and increased anti-E. coli 0157: H7 SRP antibodies in their calves (P < 0.001). Bacterin vaccines had no effect. Probiotic or sodium chlorate additives in feeds reduced fecal E. coli O157 load as did improved farm hygiene (P < 0.05). Solarization of soil reduced E. coli O157: H7 contamination in the soil (P < 0.05). In an RCT examining the role of antibiotic treatment of E. coli O157: H7 diarrhea, HUS rates were similar in children treated with Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and controls (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.11 to 2.81). In another RCT, HUS rates were similar in children receiving Synsorb-Pk and placebo (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.39 to 2.22). In one SR, hand washing reduced diarrhea by 39% in institutions (IRR 0.61; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92) and 32% in community settings (IRR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90) compared to controls. Guidelines contained recommendations to prevent STEC transmission from animals and environments to humans, including appropriate food preparation, personal hygiene, community education, and control of environmental contamination, food and water quality.ConclusionsAnimal carriage of STEC is decreased by vaccination and improved farm practices. Treatment of STEC diarrhea with antibiotics and toxin-binders did not prevent HUS. Public health interventions are the key to preventing STEC-associated diarrhea and HUS.

show abstract

“…General measures to control the spread and persistence of VTEC on the farm include good management and hygiene, clean and dry bedding, appropriate stocking rates, well-ventilated housing with good floor drainage, and practicing a closed herd policy (81,82).…”

Section: Control In Animal Wastementioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinary Public Health Approach to Managing Pathogenic Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli in the Agri-Food Chain

Duffy

McCabe

2014

Microbiol Spectr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verocytoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC) comprises many diverse serogroups, but seven serogroups, O157, O26, O103, O145, O111, O21, and O45, have been most commonly linked to severe human infections, though illness has also been reported from a range of other VTEC serogroups. This poses challenges in assessing the risk to humans from the diverse range of VTEC strains that may be recovered from animals, the environment, or food. For routine assessment of risk posed by VTEC recovered from the agri-food chain, the concept of seropathotype can be used to rank the human risk potential from a particular VTEC serogroup on the basis of both serotype (top seven serogroups) and the presence of particular virulence genes (vt in combination with eae, or aaiC plus aggR). But for other VTEC serogroups or virulence gene combinations, it is not currently possible to fully assess the risk posed. VTEC is shed in animal feces and can persist in the farm environment for extended periods ranging from several weeks to many months, posing an ongoing reservoir of contamination for grazing animals, water courses, and fresh produce and for people using farmland for recreational purposes. Appropriate handling and treatment of stored animal waste (slurries and manures) will reduce risk from VTEC in the farm environment. Foods of animal origin such as milk and dairy products and meat may be contaminated with VTEC during production and processing, and the pathogen may survive or grow during processing operations, highlighting the need for well-designed and validated Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point management systems. This article focuses on a veterinary public health approach to managing VTEC, highlighting the various routes in the agri-food chain for transmission of human pathogenic VTEC and general approaches to managing the risk.

show abstract

Farm practices to controlE. coliO157 in young cattle - A randomised controlled trial

Cited by 43 publications

References 21 publications

The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration

The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration

Interventions for preventing diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome: systematic review

Veterinary Public Health Approach to Managing Pathogenic Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli in the Agri-Food Chain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About