Volume 11, Number 8—August 2005
Research
Sheep Feed and Scrapie, France
Sandrine Philippe*, Christian Ducrot†, Pascal Roy‡, Laurent Remontet‡, Nathalie Jarrige*, and Didier Calavas*
Table 2
Multivariate analysis of potential confounding factors
| Factors | Modalities* | No. controls (%) | No. cases (%) | Log-linear model |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR† | 95% CI | ||||
| Flock size | <133* | 100 (29) | 11 (12) | 1.0 | – |
| 133–236 | 87 (25) | 24 (25) | 2.5 | 1.1 – 5.5 | |
| 237–366 | 77 (22) | 33 (35) | 4.0 | 1.8 – 8.6 | |
| >366 | 86 (25) | 26 (28) | 3.0 | 1.3 – 7.0 | |
| Type of flock | Dairy* | 229 (65) | 64 (68) | 1.0 | – |
| Meat | 113 (32) | 27 (29) | 1.0 | 0.3 – 3.2 | |
| Mixed | 8 (2) | 3 (3) | 1.2 | 0.3 – 5.5 | |
| Intensification criteria | None* | 241 (69) | 56 (60) | 1.0 | – |
| Production monitoring | 38 (11) | 16 (17) | 1.8 | 0.8 – 3.8 | |
| Involvement in a breeding scheme | 71 (20) | 22 (23) | 1.1 | 0.6 – 2.1 | |
*Reference modality.
†OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Page created: April 23, 2012
Page updated: April 23, 2012
Page reviewed: April 23, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.