Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide

Autores
Rossler, Eugenia; Signorini, Marcelo; Romero Scharpen, Analía; Soto, Lorena Paola; Berisvil, Ayelén Patricia; Zimmermann, Jorge Alberto; Fusari, Marcia Lucia; Olivero, Carolina Raquel; Zbrun, María Virginia; Frizzo, Laureano Sebastian
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The objective of this meta‐analysis was to summarize available information on the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter (TC) in different food‐producing animals worldwide. Databases (i.e., PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus) were searched from 1980 to 2017 unrestricted by language. The inclusion criteria were as follows: prevalence or incidence studies, published in peer‐reviewed journals, and they must have reported the total number of animal samples studied and the number of samples that were positive for the presence of TC. When the identification of Campylobacter species was available, this information was included in the analysis. Multilevel random‐effect meta‐analysis models were fitted to estimate mean occurrence rate of TC and to compare them among different factors potentially associated with the outcome. The mean occurrence rate of TC in food‐producing animals was 0.424 (95% CI: 0.394–0.455), and the mean occurrence rate of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli were 0.214 and 0.133, respectively. Pigs and poultry showed the highest prevalence of TC; however, there were differences in the prevalence of each Campylobacter species. Campylobacter jejuni was observed in broilers (0.322; 95% CI: 0.273–0.377) and hens (0.395; 95% CI: 0.265–0.542), while C. coli was restricted essentially in pigs (0.553; 95% CI: 0.541–0.650). The prevalence of C. jejuni in intensively bred cattle was higher (0.302; 95% CI: 0.227–0.389) than the prevalence in extensively bred cattle (0.172; 95% CI: 0.119–0.242) while the prevalence of C. coli was similar (0.051; 95% CI: 0.028–0.091 vs. 0.050; 95% CI: 0.027–0.091) in both production systems. Agar with or without blood used for the isolation of TC did not affect the prevalence observed. The method of species identification did not seem to generate differences in the prevalence of Campylobacter species. The prevalence of Campylobacter in primary food production has a strong impact on the entire agri‐food chain. National authorities must monitor the situation with the aim to establish the appropriate risk management measures.
EEA Rafaela
Fil: Rossler, Eugenia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Signorini, Marcelo. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; Argentina
Fil: Romero Scharpen, Analía. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Soto, Lorena Paola. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina.
Fil: Berisvil, Ayelén Patricia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Zimmermann, Jorge Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Fusari, Marcia Lucia. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina
Fil: Olivero, Carolina Raquel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Zbrun, María Virginia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina
Fil: Frizzo, Laureano Sebastian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina
Fuente
Zoonoses and Public Health 66 (4) : 359-369 (June 2019)
Materia
Campylobacter
Bacteria
Producción Alimentaria
Producción Animal
Métodos Estadísticos
Cadena Alimentaria
Food Production
Animal Production
Statistical Methods
Food Chains
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso restringido
Condiciones de uso
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/5697
Acceder
id INTADig_a03c198b999cd7ed686939a690150fc8
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/5697
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwideRossler, EugeniaSignorini, MarceloRomero Scharpen, AnalíaSoto, Lorena PaolaBerisvil, Ayelén PatriciaZimmermann, Jorge AlbertoFusari, Marcia LuciaOlivero, Carolina RaquelZbrun, María VirginiaFrizzo, Laureano SebastianCampylobacterBacteriaProducción AlimentariaProducción AnimalMétodos EstadísticosCadena AlimentariaFood ProductionAnimal ProductionStatistical MethodsFood ChainsThe objective of this meta‐analysis was to summarize available information on the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter (TC) in different food‐producing animals worldwide. Databases (i.e., PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus) were searched from 1980 to 2017 unrestricted by language. The inclusion criteria were as follows: prevalence or incidence studies, published in peer‐reviewed journals, and they must have reported the total number of animal samples studied and the number of samples that were positive for the presence of TC. When the identification of Campylobacter species was available, this information was included in the analysis. Multilevel random‐effect meta‐analysis models were fitted to estimate mean occurrence rate of TC and to compare them among different factors potentially associated with the outcome. The mean occurrence rate of TC in food‐producing animals was 0.424 (95% CI: 0.394–0.455), and the mean occurrence rate of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli were 0.214 and 0.133, respectively. Pigs and poultry showed the highest prevalence of TC; however, there were differences in the prevalence of each Campylobacter species. Campylobacter jejuni was observed in broilers (0.322; 95% CI: 0.273–0.377) and hens (0.395; 95% CI: 0.265–0.542), while C. coli was restricted essentially in pigs (0.553; 95% CI: 0.541–0.650). The prevalence of C. jejuni in intensively bred cattle was higher (0.302; 95% CI: 0.227–0.389) than the prevalence in extensively bred cattle (0.172; 95% CI: 0.119–0.242) while the prevalence of C. coli was similar (0.051; 95% CI: 0.028–0.091 vs. 0.050; 95% CI: 0.027–0.091) in both production systems. Agar with or without blood used for the isolation of TC did not affect the prevalence observed. The method of species identification did not seem to generate differences in the prevalence of Campylobacter species. The prevalence of Campylobacter in primary food production has a strong impact on the entire agri‐food chain. National authorities must monitor the situation with the aim to establish the appropriate risk management measures.EEA RafaelaFil: Rossler, Eugenia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; ArgentinaFil: Signorini, Marcelo. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Romero Scharpen, Analía. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; ArgentinaFil: Soto, Lorena Paola. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina.Fil: Berisvil, Ayelén Patricia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; ArgentinaFil: Zimmermann, Jorge Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; ArgentinaFil: Fusari, Marcia Lucia. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Olivero, Carolina Raquel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; ArgentinaFil: Zbrun, María Virginia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Frizzo, Laureano Sebastian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; ArgentinaWiley2019-08-27T12:19:34Z2019-08-27T12:19:34Z2019-06info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zph.12558http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/56971863-19591863-2378https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12558Zoonoses and Public Health 66 (4) : 359-369 (June 2019)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess2025-09-29T13:44:44Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/5697instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-09-29 13:44:45.014INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide
title Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide
spellingShingle Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide
Rossler, Eugenia
Campylobacter
Bacteria
Producción Alimentaria
Producción Animal
Métodos Estadísticos
Cadena Alimentaria
Food Production
Animal Production
Statistical Methods
Food Chains
title_short Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide
title_full Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide
title_fullStr Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide
title_full_unstemmed Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide
title_sort Meta‐analysis of the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter in food‐producing animals worldwide
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Rossler, Eugenia
Signorini, Marcelo
Romero Scharpen, Analía
Soto, Lorena Paola
Berisvil, Ayelén Patricia
Zimmermann, Jorge Alberto
Fusari, Marcia Lucia
Olivero, Carolina Raquel
Zbrun, María Virginia
Frizzo, Laureano Sebastian
author Rossler, Eugenia
author_facet Rossler, Eugenia
Signorini, Marcelo
Romero Scharpen, Analía
Soto, Lorena Paola
Berisvil, Ayelén Patricia
Zimmermann, Jorge Alberto
Fusari, Marcia Lucia
Olivero, Carolina Raquel
Zbrun, María Virginia
Frizzo, Laureano Sebastian
author_role author
author2 Signorini, Marcelo
Romero Scharpen, Analía
Soto, Lorena Paola
Berisvil, Ayelén Patricia
Zimmermann, Jorge Alberto
Fusari, Marcia Lucia
Olivero, Carolina Raquel
Zbrun, María Virginia
Frizzo, Laureano Sebastian
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Campylobacter
Bacteria
Producción Alimentaria
Producción Animal
Métodos Estadísticos
Cadena Alimentaria
Food Production
Animal Production
Statistical Methods
Food Chains
topic Campylobacter
Bacteria
Producción Alimentaria
Producción Animal
Métodos Estadísticos
Cadena Alimentaria
Food Production
Animal Production
Statistical Methods
Food Chains
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The objective of this meta‐analysis was to summarize available information on the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter (TC) in different food‐producing animals worldwide. Databases (i.e., PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus) were searched from 1980 to 2017 unrestricted by language. The inclusion criteria were as follows: prevalence or incidence studies, published in peer‐reviewed journals, and they must have reported the total number of animal samples studied and the number of samples that were positive for the presence of TC. When the identification of Campylobacter species was available, this information was included in the analysis. Multilevel random‐effect meta‐analysis models were fitted to estimate mean occurrence rate of TC and to compare them among different factors potentially associated with the outcome. The mean occurrence rate of TC in food‐producing animals was 0.424 (95% CI: 0.394–0.455), and the mean occurrence rate of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli were 0.214 and 0.133, respectively. Pigs and poultry showed the highest prevalence of TC; however, there were differences in the prevalence of each Campylobacter species. Campylobacter jejuni was observed in broilers (0.322; 95% CI: 0.273–0.377) and hens (0.395; 95% CI: 0.265–0.542), while C. coli was restricted essentially in pigs (0.553; 95% CI: 0.541–0.650). The prevalence of C. jejuni in intensively bred cattle was higher (0.302; 95% CI: 0.227–0.389) than the prevalence in extensively bred cattle (0.172; 95% CI: 0.119–0.242) while the prevalence of C. coli was similar (0.051; 95% CI: 0.028–0.091 vs. 0.050; 95% CI: 0.027–0.091) in both production systems. Agar with or without blood used for the isolation of TC did not affect the prevalence observed. The method of species identification did not seem to generate differences in the prevalence of Campylobacter species. The prevalence of Campylobacter in primary food production has a strong impact on the entire agri‐food chain. National authorities must monitor the situation with the aim to establish the appropriate risk management measures.
EEA Rafaela
Fil: Rossler, Eugenia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Signorini, Marcelo. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; Argentina
Fil: Romero Scharpen, Analía. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Soto, Lorena Paola. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina.
Fil: Berisvil, Ayelén Patricia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Zimmermann, Jorge Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Fusari, Marcia Lucia. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina
Fil: Olivero, Carolina Raquel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina
Fil: Zbrun, María Virginia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina
Fil: Frizzo, Laureano Sebastian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencias Veterinarias del Litoral; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Departamento de Salud Pública; Argentina
description The objective of this meta‐analysis was to summarize available information on the prevalence of thermotolerant Campylobacter (TC) in different food‐producing animals worldwide. Databases (i.e., PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus) were searched from 1980 to 2017 unrestricted by language. The inclusion criteria were as follows: prevalence or incidence studies, published in peer‐reviewed journals, and they must have reported the total number of animal samples studied and the number of samples that were positive for the presence of TC. When the identification of Campylobacter species was available, this information was included in the analysis. Multilevel random‐effect meta‐analysis models were fitted to estimate mean occurrence rate of TC and to compare them among different factors potentially associated with the outcome. The mean occurrence rate of TC in food‐producing animals was 0.424 (95% CI: 0.394–0.455), and the mean occurrence rate of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli were 0.214 and 0.133, respectively. Pigs and poultry showed the highest prevalence of TC; however, there were differences in the prevalence of each Campylobacter species. Campylobacter jejuni was observed in broilers (0.322; 95% CI: 0.273–0.377) and hens (0.395; 95% CI: 0.265–0.542), while C. coli was restricted essentially in pigs (0.553; 95% CI: 0.541–0.650). The prevalence of C. jejuni in intensively bred cattle was higher (0.302; 95% CI: 0.227–0.389) than the prevalence in extensively bred cattle (0.172; 95% CI: 0.119–0.242) while the prevalence of C. coli was similar (0.051; 95% CI: 0.028–0.091 vs. 0.050; 95% CI: 0.027–0.091) in both production systems. Agar with or without blood used for the isolation of TC did not affect the prevalence observed. The method of species identification did not seem to generate differences in the prevalence of Campylobacter species. The prevalence of Campylobacter in primary food production has a strong impact on the entire agri‐food chain. National authorities must monitor the situation with the aim to establish the appropriate risk management measures.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-08-27T12:19:34Z
2019-08-27T12:19:34Z
2019-06
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zph.12558
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/5697
1863-1959
1863-2378
https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12558
url https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zph.12558
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/5697
https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12558
identifier_str_mv 1863-1959
1863-2378
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
eu_rights_str_mv restrictedAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Zoonoses and Public Health 66 (4) : 359-369 (June 2019)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1844619136547684352
score 12.559606

Publicaciones similares