Reasons for difficulties in isolating the causative organism during food-borne outbreak investigations using STEC as a model pathogen: a systematic review, 2000 to 2019.

IF 9.9 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Christina Anthony, Karen Pearson, Rebecca Callaby, Lesley Allison, Claire Jenkins, Alison Smith-Palmer, Marianne James
{"title":"Reasons for difficulties in isolating the causative organism during food-borne outbreak investigations using STEC as a model pathogen: a systematic review, 2000 to 2019.","authors":"Christina Anthony, Karen Pearson, Rebecca Callaby, Lesley Allison, Claire Jenkins, Alison Smith-Palmer, Marianne James","doi":"10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2024.29.49.2400193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionFood-borne disease outbreak investigations use epidemiological, microbiological and food chain evidence to identify the implicated food and inform risk management actions.AimsWe used Shiga toxin-producing <i>Escherichia coli</i> (STEC) as a model pathogen to investigate the success of outbreak strain isolation from food or environmental samples during outbreak investigations, and examined the factors influencing the chance of isolation.MethodsWe searched for reports of food-borne STEC outbreak investigations worldwide in peer-reviewed and grey literature in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsWe found a total of 223 outbreaks suitable for inclusion. Food and/or environmental samples were available for testing in 137 investigations, and the outbreak strain was isolated in 94 (42%) of investigations. We found no significant effect of STEC serovar or size of outbreak on likelihood of successful outbreak strain isolation. Isolation success ranged across different implicated commodities from 86% for beef-related outbreaks to 50% for salads and leafy greens. In 20% of outbreaks with samples available for testing, an additional STEC strain was isolated alongside the outbreak strain and in 6.6%, only an alternative STEC strain was isolated. Risk management action was taken on epidemiological evidence alone in 21 incidents.ConclusionThe principal reasons why the outbreak strain was not isolated were lack of sample availability and methodological issues concerned with laboratory isolation. We recommend strategies that could improve the likelihood of isolation including the rapid collection of samples based on epidemiological intelligence.</p>","PeriodicalId":12161,"journal":{"name":"Eurosurveillance","volume":"29 49","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11650485/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eurosurveillance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2024.29.49.2400193","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionFood-borne disease outbreak investigations use epidemiological, microbiological and food chain evidence to identify the implicated food and inform risk management actions.AimsWe used Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) as a model pathogen to investigate the success of outbreak strain isolation from food or environmental samples during outbreak investigations, and examined the factors influencing the chance of isolation.MethodsWe searched for reports of food-borne STEC outbreak investigations worldwide in peer-reviewed and grey literature in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsWe found a total of 223 outbreaks suitable for inclusion. Food and/or environmental samples were available for testing in 137 investigations, and the outbreak strain was isolated in 94 (42%) of investigations. We found no significant effect of STEC serovar or size of outbreak on likelihood of successful outbreak strain isolation. Isolation success ranged across different implicated commodities from 86% for beef-related outbreaks to 50% for salads and leafy greens. In 20% of outbreaks with samples available for testing, an additional STEC strain was isolated alongside the outbreak strain and in 6.6%, only an alternative STEC strain was isolated. Risk management action was taken on epidemiological evidence alone in 21 incidents.ConclusionThe principal reasons why the outbreak strain was not isolated were lack of sample availability and methodological issues concerned with laboratory isolation. We recommend strategies that could improve the likelihood of isolation including the rapid collection of samples based on epidemiological intelligence.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Eurosurveillance
Eurosurveillance INFECTIOUS DISEASES-
CiteScore
32.70
自引率
2.10%
发文量
430
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Eurosurveillance is a European peer-reviewed journal focusing on the epidemiology, surveillance, prevention, and control of communicable diseases relevant to Europe.It is a weekly online journal, with 50 issues per year published on Thursdays. The journal includes short rapid communications, in-depth research articles, surveillance reports, reviews, and perspective papers. It excels in timely publication of authoritative papers on ongoing outbreaks or other public health events. Under special circumstances when current events need to be urgently communicated to readers for rapid public health action, e-alerts can be released outside of the regular publishing schedule. Additionally, topical compilations and special issues may be provided in PDF format.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信