Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:55:31.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The measurement of the duration of infection in paratyphoid fever

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

T. C. R. George ,
R. W. S. Harvey  and
Scott Thomson
T. C. R. George
Affiliation:
Health Department, North Breconshire and the Public Health Laboratory, Cardiff
R. W. S. Harvey
Affiliation:
Health Department, North Breconshire and the Public Health Laboratory, Cardiff
Scott Thomson
Affiliation:
Health Department, North Breconshire and the Public Health Laboratory, Cardiff
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Cases of paratyphoid fever are often not diagnosed until the second, third or subsequent weeks of illness. When calculating clearance rates of a series of cases the calculations must be based only on the numbers known to be positive at the week under consideration. If based throughout on the total number of cases the rates of clearance in the early weeks are greatly reduced.

Cases for which laboratory records are incomplete must not be entirely rejected when calculating clearance rates but must be retained in the population for as long as they were known to be positive.

Analyses designed to show the duration of infection in paratyphoid fever can only be made with accuracy under the most favourable conditions.

A large number of cases of paratyphoid fever were repeatedly examined bacteriologically to establish the duration of the infection as distinct from the clinical illness. After an initial lag the proportion of cases remaining infected fell logarithmically until the carriers revealed themselves.

We are grateful to many medical officers for information about their cases, and to Dr Lewis Fanning and Dr Ian Sutherland for much helpful criticism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1953 , pp. 532 - 540
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

References

Gell, P. G. H. & Knox, R. (1942). Publ. Hlth, Lond., 56, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, V. & Wright, H. D. (1937). J. Path. Bact. 45, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, P. & Martin, C. J. (1919–20). Proc. R. Soc. Med. (Sect. Epid.)13, 277.Google Scholar
Holt, H. D., Vaughan, A. C. T. & Wright, H. D. (1942). Lancet, i, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. & Payne, A. M. M. (1950). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth, 9, 168.Google Scholar
Kwantes, W. (1952). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth, 11, 239.Google Scholar
Mosher, W. E., Wheeler, S. M., Chant, H. L. & Hardy, A. V. (1941). Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 56, 2415.Google Scholar
Thomson, F. H., Mann, E. & Marriner, H. (1929). Ann. Rep. metrop. Asylums Bd. (1928–9), p. 304. Cited in System of Bacteriology, 5, Medical Research Council, 1930. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Wright, H. D. (1941). J. Path. Bact. 54, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar