Amita Gupta*

, Jennifer M. Nelson*, Timothy J. Barrett*, Robert V. Tauxe*, Shannon P. Rossiter*, Cindy R. Friedman*, Kevin W. Joyce*, Kirk E. Smith†, Timothy F. Jones‡, Marguerit A. Hawkins§, Beletshachew Shiferaw¶, James L. Beebe#, Duc J. Vugia**, Terry Rabatsky-Ehr††, James A. Benson‡‡, Timothy P. Root§§, Frederick J. Angulo*, and for the NARMS Working Group
Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; †Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; ‡Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; §Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; ¶Oregon Department of Human Services, Portland, Oregon, USA; #Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Denver, Colorado, USA; **California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California, USA; ††Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, Connecticut, USA; ‡‡Georgia Department of Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; §§New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, USA
Main Article
Table 3
Trend analysis of the proportion of fluoroquinolone-resistance among Campylobacter, NARMS, 1997–2001
| Y |
Unadjusted ORa (95% CI) |
AdjustedORb (95% CI) |
1997c
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
1998
|
1.0 (0.6 to 1.7)
|
1.3 (0.7 to 2.4)
|
1999
|
1.4 (0.9 to 2.3)
|
2.1 (1.2 to 3.9)
|
2000
|
1.1 (0.7 to 1.8)
|
1.5 (0.8 to 2.8)
|
| 2001 |
1.6 (1.0 to 2.5) |
2.5 (1.4 to 4.4) |
Main Article
Top of Page