4.8 Article

An outbreak of febrile gastroenteritis associated with corn contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes.

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 342, 期 17, 页码 1236-1241

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200004273421702

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: On May 21, 1997, numerous cases of febrile gastrointestinal illness were reported among the students and staff of two primary schools in northern Italy, all of whom had eaten at cafeterias served by the same caterer. Methods: We interviewed people who ate at the cafeterias about symptoms and foods consumed on May 20. There were no samples of foods left at the cafeterias, but we tested routine samples taken on May 20 by the caterer and environmental specimens at the catering plant. The hospitalized patients were tested for common enteropathogens and toxins. Results: Of the 2189 persons interviewed (82 percent of those exposed), 1566 (72 percent) reported symptoms; of these, 292 (19 percent) were hospitalized. Among samples obtained from hospitalized patients, all but two of the stool specimens and all blood specimens were negative for common enteropathogens. Listeria monocytogenes was isolated from one blood specimen and from 123 of the 141 stool specimens. Consumption of a cold salad of corn and tuna was associated with the development of symptoms (relative risk, 6.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.81 to 7.98; P<0.001). L. monocytogenes was isolated from the caterer's sample of the salad and from environmental specimens collected from the catering plant. All listeria isolates were serotype 4b and were found to be identical on DNA analysis. Experimental contamination of sterile samples of the implicated foods showed that L. monocytogenes grew on corn when kept for at least 10 hours at 25 degrees C. Conclusions: Food-borne infection with L. monocytogenes can cause febrile illness with gastroenteritis in immunocompetent persons. (N Engl J Med 2000;342:1236-41.) (C) 2000, Massachusetts Medical Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据