A scoping review of the detection, epidemiology and control of Cyclospora cayetanensis with an emphasis on produce, water and soil.

Cyclospora cayetanensis is a parasite causing cyclosporiasis (an illness in humans). Produce (fruits, vegetables, herbs), water and soil contaminated with C. cayetanensis have been implicated in human infection. The objective was to conduct a scoping review of primary research in English on the detection, epidemiology and control of C. cayetanensis with an emphasis on produce, water and soil. MEDLINE® (Web of ScienceTM), Agricola (ProQuest), CABI Global Health, and Food Science and Technology Abstracts (EBSCOhost) were searched from 1979 to February 2020. Of the 349 relevant primary research studies identified, there were 75 detection-method studies, 40 molecular characterisation studies, 38 studies of Cyclospora in the environment (33 prevalence studies, 10 studies of factors associated with environmental contamination), 246 human infection studies (212 prevalence/incidence studies, 32 outbreak studies, 60 studies of environmental factors associated with non-outbreak human infection) and eight control studies. There appears to be sufficient literature for a systematic review of prevalence and factors associated with human infection with C. cayetanensis. There is a dearth of publicly available detection-method studies in soil (n = 0) and water (n = 2), prevalence studies on soil (n = 1) and studies of the control of Cyclospora (particularly on produce prior to retail (n = 0)).

The REFLECT statement: reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration.

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 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 a deliberate challenge model in some trials, and 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.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety.

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A two-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, Ill, United States of America, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety (LFS) and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety.

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that might not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A 2-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, IL, to achieve the objective. Before the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Before the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items would need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional subitem was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.

Methods and Processes of Developing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) Statement.

BACKGROUND: Reporting of observational studies in veterinary research presents challenges that often are not addressed in published reporting guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement that addresses unique reporting requirements for observational studies in veterinary medicine related to health, production, welfare, and food safety. DESIGN: Consensus meeting of experts. SETTING: Mississauga, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen experts from North America, Europe, and Australia. METHODS: Experts completed a pre-meeting survey about whether items in the STROBE statement should be modified or added to address unique issues related to observational studies in animal species with health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes. During the meeting, each STROBE item was discussed to determine whether or not rewording was recommended and whether additions were warranted. Anonymous voting was used to determine consensus. RESULTS: Six items required no modifications or additions. Modifications or additions were made to the STROBE items 1 (title and abstract), 3 (objectives), 5 (setting), 6 (participants), 7 (variables), 8 (data sources/measurement), 9 (bias), 10 (study size), 12 (statistical methods), 13 (participants), 14 (descriptive data), 15 (outcome data), 16 (main results), 17 (other analyses), 19 (limitations), and 22 (funding). CONCLUSION: The methods and processes used were similar to those used for other extensions of the STROBE statement. The use of this STROBE statement extension should improve reporting of observational studies in veterinary research by recognizing unique features of observational studies involving food-producing and companion animals, products of animal origin, aquaculture, and wildlife.

Explanation and Elaboration Document for the STROBE-Vet Statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Veterinary Extension.

The STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement was first published in 2007 and again in 2014. The purpose of the original STROBE was to provide guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting; however, STROBE has a unique focus on observational studies. Although much of the guidance provided by the original STROBE document is directly applicable, it was deemed useful to map those statements to veterinary concepts, provide veterinary examples, and highlight unique aspects of reporting in veterinary observational studies. Here, we present the examples and explanations for the checklist items included in the STROBE-Vet statement. Thus, this is a companion document to the STROBE-Vet statement methods and process document (JVIM_14575 "Methods and Processes of Developing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) Statement" undergoing proofing), which describes the checklist and how it was developed.

Methods and Processes of Developing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) Statement.

Reporting of observational studies in veterinary research presents challenges that often are not addressed in published reporting guidelines. Our objective was to develop an extension of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement that addresses unique reporting requirements for observational studies in veterinary medicine related to health, production, welfare, and food safety. We conducted a consensus meeting with 17 experts in Mississauga, Canada. Experts completed a premeeting survey about whether items in the STROBE statement should be modified or added to address unique issues related to observational studies in animal species with health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes. During the meeting, each STROBE item was discussed to determine whether or not rewording was recommended, and whether additions were warranted. Anonymous voting was used to determine consensus. Six items required no modifications or additions. Modifications or additions were made to the STROBE items 1 (title and abstract), 3 (objectives), 5 (setting), 6 (participants), 7 (variables), 8 (data sources and measurement), 9 (bias), 10 (study size), 12 (statistical methods), 13 (participants), 14 (descriptive data), 15 (outcome data), 16 (main results), 17 (other analyses), 19 (limitations), and 22 (funding). The methods and processes used were similar to those used for other extensions of the STROBE statement. The use of this STROBE statement extension should improve reporting of observational studies in veterinary research by recognizing unique features of observational studies involving food-producing and companion animals, products of animal origin, aquaculture, and wildlife.

Explanation and Elaboration Document for the STROBE-Vet Statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Veterinary Extension.

The STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement was first published in 2007 and again in 2014. The purpose of the original STROBE was to provide guidance for authors, reviewers and editors to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting; however, STROBE has a unique focus on observational studies. Although much of the guidance provided by the original STROBE document is directly applicable, it was deemed useful to map those statements to veterinary concepts, provide veterinary examples and highlight unique aspects of reporting in veterinary observational studies. Here, we present the examples and explanations for the checklist items included in the STROBE-Vet Statement. Thus, this is a companion document to the STROBE-Vet Statement Methods and process document, which describes the checklist and how it was developed.

Methods and Processes of Developing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) Statement.

The reporting of observational studies in veterinary research presents many challenges that often are not adequately addressed in published reporting guidelines. A consensus meeting of experts was organized to develop an extension of the STROBE statement to address observational studies in veterinary medicine with respect to animal health, animal production, animal welfare and food safety outcomes. The consensus meeting was held 11-13 May 2014 in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Seventeen experts from North America, Europe and Australia attended the meeting. The experts were epidemiologists and biostatisticians, many of whom hold or have held editorial positions with relevant journals. Prior to the meeting, 19 experts completed a survey about whether they felt any of the 22 items of the STROBE statement should be modified and whether items should be added to address unique issues related to observational studies in animal species with health, production, welfare or food safety outcomes. At the meeting, the participants were provided with the survey responses and relevant literature concerning the reporting of veterinary observational studies. During the meeting, each STROBE item was discussed to determine whether or not re-wording was recommended, and whether additions were warranted. Anonymous voting was used to determine whether there was consensus for each item change or addition. The consensus was that six items needed no modifications or additions. Modifications or additions were made to the STROBE items numbered as follows: 1 (title and abstract), 3 (objectives), 5 (setting), 6 (participants), 7 (variables), 8 (data sources/measurement), 9 (bias), 10 (study size), 12 (statistical methods), 13 (participants), 14 (descriptive data), 15 (outcome data), 16 (main results), 17 (other analyses), 19 (limitations) and 22 (funding). Published literature was not always available to support modification to, or inclusion of, an item. The methods and processes used in the development of this statement were similar to those used for other extensions of the STROBE statement. The use of this extension to the STROBE statement should improve the reporting of observational studies in veterinary research related to animal health, production, welfare or food safety outcomes by recognizing the unique features of observational studies involving food-producing and companion animals, products of animal origin, aquaculture and wildlife.

Methods and processes of developing the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology - veterinary (STROBE-Vet) statement.

BACKGROUND: The reporting of observational studies in veterinary research presents many challenges that often are not adequately addressed in published reporting guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement that addresses unique reporting requirements for observational studies in veterinary medicine related to health, production, welfare, and food safety. DESIGN: A consensus meeting of experts was organized to develop an extension of the STROBE statement to address observational studies in veterinary medicine with respect to animal health, animal production, animal welfare, and food safety outcomes. SETTING: Consensus meeting May 11-13, 2014 in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen experts from North America, Europe, and Australia attended the meeting. The experts were epidemiologists and biostatisticians, many of whom hold or have held editorial positions with relevant journals. METHODS: Prior to the meeting, 19 experts completed a survey about whether they felt any of the 22 items of the STROBE statement should be modified and if items should be added to address unique issues related to observational studies in animal species with health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes. At the meeting, the participants were provided with the survey responses and relevant literature concerning the reporting of veterinary observational studies. During the meeting, each STROBE item was discussed to determine whether or not re-wording was recommended, and whether additions were warranted. Anonymous voting was used to determine whether there was consensus for each item change or addition. RESULTS: The consensus was that six items needed no modifications or additions. Modifications or additions were made to the STROBE items numbered: 1 (title and abstract), 3 (objectives), 5 (setting), 6 (participants), 7 (variables), 8 (data sources/measurement), 9 (bias), 10 (study size), 12 (statistical methods), 13 (participants), 14 (descriptive data), 15 (outcome data), 16 (main results), 17 (other analyses), 19 (limitations), and 22 (funding). LIMITATION: Published literature was not always available to support modification to, or inclusion of, an item. CONCLUSION: The methods and processes used in the development of this statement were similar to those used for other extensions of the STROBE statement. The use of this extension to the STROBE statement should improve the reporting of observational studies in veterinary research related to animal health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes by recognizing the unique features of observational studies involving food-producing and companion animals, products of animal origin, aquaculture, and wildlife.

Activities to address antimicrobial resistance in the United States.

Antimicrobials are essential for the prevention and treatment of bacterial infections in humans and animals. Subtherapeutic antimicrobials have been used as growth promoters for >40 years. The subject of antimicrobial resistance is not new but has gained increasing attention due to public-health concerns about multi-resistant pathogenic organisms. Numerous United States' activities do exist to address antimicrobial resistance. A surveillance system (the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System) was established in 1996 to monitor changes over time in resistance for 17 antibiotics in humans and animals. Educational campaigns have been created to promote the judicious therapeutic use of antimicrobials. Producer groups are developing guidelines for judicious therapeutic antimicrobial use for their prospective species. Basic and applied research programs are being expanded to answer many of the unsolved questions regarding development, persistence, and transmission of antimicrobial resistance. This paper focuses on a federal inter-agency public-health action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance; the plan was released for public comment in 2000. This plan addresses goals and actions to combat antimicrobial resistance in humans and agriculture in four areas: surveillance; research; prevention and control; product development.

Epidemiology of raccoon rabies in Virginia, 1984 to 1989.

Geographical and temporal trends in reports of rabid raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Virginia were summarized for 1984 to 1989; 3,256 raccoons were submitted for rabies testing, of which 1,053 (32.3%) had rabies. Both the absolute number of rabid raccoons and the percent of rabid raccoons (number rabid divided by number submitted) were examined for seasonal and yearly trends. Geographically, the epidemic moved eastward and southward in the state. The seasonal trend showed bimodal peaks in late winter and early fall and a seasonal low in summer. The percent of rabies positive raccoons peaked 1 mo earlier than the absolute number of rabies positive raccoons. The peak in the number of rabies positive raccoons occurred in 1987, while the percent of rabies positive raccoons peaked in 1986. These trends were used to recommend timing and placement of oral vaccine as one strategy to control raccoon rabies in wildlife.

The REFLECT statement: reporting guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration.

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.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety.

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A two-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, IL, United States of America, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock-production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines For Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety (LFS) and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety by modifying the CONSORT statement.

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A 2-day consensus meeting was held on 18-19 November 2008 in Chicago, IL, USA, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock-production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health and food-safety outcomes.

ASAS Centennial Paper: Developments and future outlook for preharvest food safety.

The last century of food animal agriculture is a remarkable triumph of scientific research. Knowledge derived through research has resulted in the development and use of new technologies that have increased the efficiency of food production and created a huge animal production and food manufacturing industry capable of feeding the US population while also providing significant quantities of high-quality food for export to other countries. Although the US food supply is among the safest in the world, the US Center for Disease Prevention and Control estimates that 76 million people get sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 die each year from foodborne illness. Consequently, preventing foodborne illness and death remains a major public health concern. Challenges to providing a safe, abundant, and nutritious food supply are complex because all aspects of food production, from farm to fork, must be considered. Given the national and international demand and expectations for food safety as well as the formidable challenges of producing and maintaining a safe food supply, food safety research and educational programs have taken on a new urgency. Remarkable progress has been made during the last century. Wisdom from a century of animal agriculture research now includes the realization that on-farm pathogens are intricately associated with animal health and well-being, the production of high-quality food, and profitability. In this review, some of the developments that have occurred over the last few decades are summarized, including types, sources, and concentrations of disease-causing pathogens encountered in food-producing animal environments and their association with food safety; current and future methods to control or reduce foodborne pathogens on the farm; and present and future preharvest food safety research directions. Future scientific breakthroughs will no doubt have a profound impact on animal agriculture and the production of high-quality food, but we will also be faced with moral, ethical, and societal dilemmas that must be reconciled. A strong, science-based approach that addresses all the complex issues involved in continuing to improve food safety and public health is necessary to prevent foodborne illnesses. Not only must research be conducted to solve complex food safety issues, but results of that research must also be communicated effectively to producers and consumers.