Robert Swanepoel*

, Sheilagh B. Smit*, Pierre E. Rollin†, Pierre Formenty‡, Patricia A. Leman*, Alan Kemp*, Felicity J. Burt§, Antoinette A. Grobbelaar*, Janice Croft*, Daniel G. Bausch¶, Hervé Zeller#, Herwig Leirs††, L.E.O. Braack‡‡, Modeste L. Libande§§, Sherif Zaki†, Stuart T. Nichol†, Thomas G. Ksiazek†, Janusz T. Paweska*, and on behalf of the International ScientificTechnical Committee for Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever Control in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Author affiliations: *National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Sandringham, Republic of South Africa; †Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; ‡World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; §University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa; ¶Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA; #Institut Pasteur, Lyon, France; **University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; ††University of Aarhus, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark; ‡‡Conservation International, Cape Town, South Africa; §§Department of Health, Watsa, Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Main Article
Figure 1

Figure 1. Marburg virus ELISA percent positivity (PP) values recorded on bat serum samples collected in 1999 in Durba, Democratic Republic of the Congo (n = 426), and from 1984 through 1994 in Kruger National Park, South Africa (n = 188). The cutoff PP value of 16.4 was fixed as 3 × (mean + 3 SD) of values observed in the Kruger National Park samples.
Main Article
Top of Page