Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 18, Number 3—March 2012


Pathogenic Potential to Humans of Bovine Escherichia coli O26, Scotland

Margo E. Chase-ToppingComments to Author , Tracy Rosser, Lesley J. Allison, Emily Courcier, Judith Evans, Iain J. McKendrick, Michael C. Pearce, Ian Handel, Alfredo Caprioli, Helge Karch, Mary F. Hanson, Kevin G.J. Pollock, Mary E. Locking, Mark E.J. Woolhouse, Louise Matthews, J. Chris Low, and David L. Gally
Author affiliations: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK (M.E. Chase-Topping, E. Courcier, M.C. Pearce, M.E.J. Woolhouse); The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh (T. Rosser, I. Handel, D.L. Gally); Scottish E. coli O157/VTEC Reference Laboratory, Edinburgh (L.J. Allison, M.F. Hanson); Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh (J. Evans, M.C. Pearce, J.C. Low); Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, Edinburgh (I.J. McKendrick); Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy (A. Caprioli); University of Münster, Münster, Germany (H. Karch); Health Protection Scotland, Glasgow, UK (K.G.J. Pollock, M.E. Locking); University of Glasgow Veterinary School, Glasgow (L. Matthews)

Main Article

Table 3

Farm-level and fecal pat–level prevalence of Escherichia coli O26, Scotland*

E. coli O26 status Farms, n = 338
Fecal pats, n = 6,086
No. positive Observed prevalence Adjusted prevalence (95% CI) No. positive Observed prevalence Adjusted prevalence (95% CI)
E. coli O26* 68 0.20 0.22 (0.18–0.27) 249 0.041 0.046 (0.031–0.062)
stx+ E. coli O26 38 0.11 0.12 (0.09–0.16) 122 0.020 0.020 (0.012–0.029)
stx1 + stx2 + E. coli O26 13 0.04 0.06 (0.031–0.09) 97 0.016 0.004 (0.001–0.008)
stx1 + stx2 + eae + E. coli O26 12 0.04 0.05 (0.03–0.09) 24 0.004 0.004 (0.001–0.007)

*Minor differences in the farm-level prevalence estimates for E. coli O26 between Pearce et al. (21) and this study resulted from use of different statistical models. Pearce et al. (21) aimed to provide national prevalence estimates; thus, weighted estimates of mean prevalence were generated that accounted for the fractions of the national herd found in different Animal Health Districts (AHDs). By contrast, we reported the mean of the sample collected in a stratified fashion across the AHDs. Because there were only relatively small differences in mean prevalence in the different AHDs, the effect on the 2 means is negligible and the effect on the standard errors relatively small.

Main Article