Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Mar 23;16(3):e0248464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248464

Characteristics of hospitalized patients during a large waterborne outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni in Norway

Nicolay Mortensen 1,2, Solveig Aalstad Jonasson 3,#, Ingrid Viola Lavesson 4,#, Knut Erik Emberland 5,6, Sverre Litleskare 5, Knut-Arne Wensaas 5, Guri Rortveit 6, Nina Langeland 7, Kurt Hanevik 7,8,*
Editor: Tai-Heng Chen9
PMCID: PMC7987138  PMID: 33755697

Abstract

Very few reports describe all hospitalized patients with campylobacteriosis in the setting of a single waterborne outbreak. This study describes the demographics, comorbidities, clinical features, microbiology, treatment and complications of 67 hospitalized children and adults during a large waterborne outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni in Askoy, Norway in 2019, where more than 2000 people in a community became ill. We investigated factors that contributed to hospitalization and treatment choices. Data were collected from electronic patient records during and after the outbreak. Fifty adults and seventeen children were included with a biphasic age distribution peaking in toddlers and middle-aged adults. Most children, 14 out of 17, were below 4 years of age. Diarrhea was the most commonly reported symptom (99%), whereas few patients (9%) reported bloody stools. Comorbidities were frequent in adults (63%) and included cardiovascular disease, pre-existing gastrointestinal disease or chronic renal failure. Comorbidities in children (47%) were dominated by pulmonary and gastrointestinal diseases. Adult patients appeared more severely ill than children with longer duration of stay, higher levels of serum creatinine and CRP and rehydration therapy. Ninety-two percent of adult patients were treated with intravenous fluid as compared with 12% of children. Almost half of the admitted children received antibiotics. Two patients died, including a toddler. Both had significant complicating factors. The demographic and clinical findings presented may be useful for health care planning and patient management in Campylobacter outbreaks both in primary health care and in hospitals.

Introduction

Campylobacter is the most frequent bacterial cause of gastroenteritis in both high- and low-income countries [1], and outbreaks are often water-borne [2]. When public water supply systems are the source of infection, large parts of a population can potentially be affected in a short period. The infection is usually self-limiting with no need for antibiotic treatment, and mortality is low [3]. Associated complications include Guillian-Barré syndrome, reactive arthritis, and myocarditis [46].

An outbreak of infectious gastroenteritis was suspected in the Askoøy municipality in the Western part of Norway on June 6th after a period of drought followed by heavy rainfall [7]. An unusually high number of contacts due to gastroenteritis was made to the local primary health care services. The following day an elevated water reservoir was shown to be the source. A boil water advisory was issued, and the reservoir was disconnected from the water supply. Being the primary hospital for Askoy, Haukeland University Hospital experienced an increased number of admissions due to infectious gastroenteritis. Testing of patient fecal samples found Campylobacter jejuni to be the etiologic agent. Investigations by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norwegian Food Safety Authority and Askoy Municipality found the outbreak to be clonal as Campylobacter jejuni isolates from patients and water samples were identical by whole-genome sequencing. The specific strain of Campylobacter jejuni (sequence type ST1701) did not have any close genetic relationship to other publicly available strains, although poultry or birds were identified as a possible source. Contamination occurred by leaching of animal feces through cracks in the mountain into the water reservoir between May 30th and June 3rd. It is estimated that at least 2000 persons developed symptoms of gastroenteritis [7]. Judging by the number of people affected, this was the largest documented single pathogen outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni in the world since the Klarup (Denmark) outbreak in 1995–96 [8].

Existing data on hospitalized patients during Campylobacter outbreaks are scarce, and it was hypothesized that important knowledge regarding comorbidity of hospitalized patients and factors affecting the hospitalization and treatment choices could be gained from this large outbreak. The aim of this study was to describe the demographic, clinical and microbiological characteristics of patients admitted to hospital during the outbreak.

Material and methods

Study setting and design

Askoy is an island municipality outside of Bergen, Norway, with a population of 29 553 at the time of the outbreak. Haukeland University Hospital is the island’s primary hospital.

We conducted an observational study of patients admitted to hospital during the outbreak between May 31st and June 18th. The study population was children and adults living or working in Askoy during the outbreak, and who were admitted to hospital with signs of gastrointestinal infection.

Inclusion and data collection

Patients were identified by searching the hospital admission registry for ICD-10 codes related to infectious gastrointestinal symptoms, Campylobacter infection or consumption of contaminated water (A04.5, A04.8, A04.9, A08.3, A08.4, A08.5, A09.0 and Z58.2). For patients with home address outside of Askoy a code for Campylobacter-infection (A04.5) was mandatory. In addition, we identified individuals from Askoy not included in the search who in the study period either were registered in the Emergency Department admissions database with diarrhea as the cause of admission or had a fecal test positive for Campylobacter jejuni.

Three of the authors (NM, VL and SJ) reviewed the electronic patient records. We defined a case as a patient fulfilling three of five of the following criteria, including at least one of the two first; 1. Home address in area with water supply from the contaminated water reservoir, 2. having consumed water from the contaminated water reservoir, 3. diarrhea, 4. fever, 5. abdominal pain. We extracted demographic and admission related variables (age, sex, comorbidities, date of admission, length of stay, cause for admission, readmission), symptoms (fever, dehydration, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal-, head-, chest- or joint pain, sleeping difficulties, bloody stools), clinical parameters (heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, body temperature, SpO2), blood tests (C-Reactive Protein (CRP, including results in admission letters), leukocyte count, hemoglobin concentration, creatinine), treatment (antibiotics, fluids, pain relief), microbiological sample results (fecal test, blood cultures) and complications (death, readmissions, other). A patient was registered as dehydrated based on the clinical assessment and conclusion by the attending doctor. For all blood samples the value most deviant from the appropriate reference range during the first 24 hours after admission was registered. A child was defined as a person younger than sixteen years. We categorized comorbidities as pulmonary-, cardiovascular-, rheumatological-, psychiatric-, gastrointestinal- and neurological disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic renal failure. A single patient could be registered with multiple comorbidities.

Severity of illness was assessed by SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) in adults and children with age appropriate reference ranges for parameters) and qSOFA (quick Sepsis Organ Failure Assessment) scores (only adults). SIRS is an extensive inflammatory state in response to an infectious or noninfectious insult. It consists of four criteria in which two criteria or more are needed for a ‘positive’ score. In cases with a suspected infection, SIRS was widely used in hospitals as a screening for sepsis. qSOFA is a combination of clinical criteria used to identify adult patients with suspected infection who have greater risk of poor outcome. Two criteria or more is considered a ‘positive’ score and indicates higher mortality risk. By international consensus qSOFA has replaced SIRS [9].

Fisher exact test was used for comparisons of symptoms and treatment between adults and children, and MannWhitney two-tailed non-parametric test was used for continuous variables. Significance level was p<0.05. SPSS version 25 was used for statistics. Excel 2016 version 16.0.5110.1000 was used for graphics.

Ethics

Two adults and the parents of one child withdrew consent and were excluded. All included patients, or parents in case of children under the age of 16, gave active or passive consent to participate. The Regional Ethics Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC) approved the study and consent procedures.

Results

A total of 67 patients fulfilled the case definition and were included in the study. Of these, 50 were adults and 17 children. All children were younger than nine years, and 14 were infants and toddlers under the age of four years (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Number of patients with campylobacteriosis by age group, in an outbreak in Askoy, Norway 2019.

Fig 1

The bar for 0–9 years is further divided in a separate diagram by one-year intervals.

Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The mean length of hospital stay for adults was 2 days, with a maximum of 9 days. Maximum length of stay for children was 2 days. Ten children stayed for less than 24 hours, and of these 50% (5/10) were discharged directly from the pediatric emergency department after an initial assessment and observation by the pediatrician on call. Comorbidity was registered in 68% of adults and 47% of children. Cardiovascular disease (30%), gastrointestinal disease (28%) and chronic renal failure (22%) were major comorbid conditions among adults. In children, the major comorbidities were chronic gastrointestinal disease and pulmonary disease, which were equally prevalent (29%). Among 5 children with pulmonary disease, 4 had asthma.

Table 1. Characteristics among hospitalized patients with campylobacteriosis during an outbreak in Askoy, Norway 2019, including comorbidity categorized into disease groups.

Adults (≥16) Children (<16) Total
Total, N (% of all patients) 50 (75) 17 (25) 67 (100)
Female, n (% total) 25 (50) 7 (41) 32 (48)
Age, years, mean (range) 52.3 (20–93.2) 2.6 (0.2–8.7) 39.7 (0.2–93.2)
Length of stay, days, mean (range) 2 (0–9) 0 (0–2) 1.5 (0–9)
Comorbidity, n (% total) 34 (68) 8 (47) 42 (63)
    Cancer 1 (2) 0 (0) 1 (1)
    Pulmonary disease 6 (12) 5 (29) 11 (16)
    Cardiovascular disease 15 (30) 1 (6) 16 (24)
    Diabetes 3 (6) 0 (0) 3 (4)
    Rheumatological disease 5 (10) 0 (0) 5 (7)
    Psychiatric disease 8 (16) 0 (0) 8 (12)
    Gastrointestinal disease 14 (28) 5 (29) 19 (28)
    Neurological disease 6 (12) 1 (6) 7 (10)
    Chronic renal failure 11 (22) 0 (0) 11 (16)

Fig 2 shows number of admissions and onset of symptoms by date in June 2019. Mean duration of symptoms before being admitted was slightly longer in adults (three days) than in children (two days). The increase in hospital admission due to gastrointestinal infection came around the same time as a toddler with diarrheal disease died. The number of admissions declined between two to three days after the boil water advisory was issued and the suspected water reservoir was disconnected from the water supply.

Fig 2. Total number of admissions for children and adults by date in June 2019 in an outbreak of campylobacteriosis in Askoy, Norway.

Fig 2

Onset of symptoms for both groups represented by lines. Number of patients on y-axis is for both admission date and date of symptom onset.

Symptoms presented at admission are shown in Table 2. All patients except for one adult reported diarrhea (66/67, 99%). Only 6 patients reported bloody stools, but significantly more adults than children were evaluated to be dehydrated. Vomiting and fever were significantly more common in children. Symptoms dependent on subjective communication such as abdominal pain were omitted for children, as they were too young to reliably report these. 18% of adults reported joint pain.

Table 2. Symptoms among hospitalized children and adults in an outbreak of campylobacteriosis in Askoy, Norway 2019.

Total Adults (≥16) Children (<16)
n % total n % total n % total OR (95% CI)
Diarrhea 66 99% 49 98% 17 100% ns
Bloody stools 6 9% 4 8% 2 12% ns
Dehydration 45 67% 40 80% 5 29% 9.60 (2.74–33.6)
Fevera 27 40% 13 26% 14 82% 0.08 (0.02–0.31)
Vomiting 25 37% 13 26% 12 71% 0.15 (0.04–0.50)
Abdominal pain na - 35 70% na - na
Headache na - 9 18% na - na
Joint pain na - 9 18% na - na
Insomnia na - 6 12% na - na
Chest pain na - 3 6% na - na

a Fever was either self-reported or measured as temperature ≥38 degrees centigrade at admission.

ns = not significant, na = not applicable.

CRP results was available from 15 children, and results of additional blood samples were obtained from 13 children. Every adult patient had blood samples taken. Adults had mean CRP levels of 112mg/L (range 6–302), which was higher than children, who had a mean level of 43mg/L (range 0–149, p<0.001). Serum creatinine levels were above reference range in 14 male adults (mean 115 umol/L, range 66–179, reference range 60–105) and in 1 female adult (mean 69 umol/L, range 64–100, reference range 45–90). The mean serum creatinine in the nine children where it was available was 28 umol/L (range 18–56, reference range 20–70). Seven of fourteen (41%) male patients without chronic renal failure had serum creatinine levels above the reference range, while all women and children were within reference ranges.

Thirty percent of adult patients (15/50) had hemoglobin concentrations below age and sex specific reference ranges compared to 14% (2/13) of the children. Among 15 adults with low hemoglobin concentration, 2 (13%) had bloody stools, and 11 (73%) had comorbid conditions. All 4 adult patients with bloody stools also had comorbid conditions as opposed to children, where no comorbidities were observed in this group.

Regarding treatment, the majority of adult patients (92%) received intravenous fluids, compared to 12% of the children (Table 3). Nearly half of the children (8/17, 47%) received antibiotic treatment for Campylobacter-infection. Erythromycin was used in seven children and azithromycin in one. One child was treated for septic shock of unknown origin. The use of antibiotics for Campylobacter-infection was significantly lower in adult patients (7/50, 14%), where four patients were given erythromycin and three azithromycin. Among adults there was a tendency toward an increasing proportion of antibiotic use with age; of 13 patients aged seventy years or older, four patients received antibiotic treatment for Campylobacter. Five adult patients received antibiotics against other infections, including UTI and cholecystitis, none for sepsis.

Table 3. Treatment of hospitalized children and adults in an outbreak of campylobacteriosis in Askoy, Norway 2019.

Total Adults (≥16) Children (<16)
n % total n % total n % total OR (95% CI)
Intravenous fluid 48 72% 46 92% 2 12% 86.3 (14.3–519.0)
Fluid by feeding tube 2 3% 0 0% 2 12% na*
Antibiotic treatment started, any indication 21 31% 12 24% 9 53% 0.28 (0.09–0.89)
Antibiotic treatment for Campylobacter started 15 22% 7 14% 8 47% 0.18 (0.05–0.64)
Analgesics other than acetaminophen/paracetamol 19 28% 18 36% 1 6% 9.00 (1.1–73.6)

na = not applicable

* Fluid by feeding tube is very rarely considered in adults.

Fifty-nine patients had fecal Campylobacter tests taken (94%, 47/50 of adult patients and 71%, 12/17 of children). All were positive for Campylobacter jejuni, either by growth in culture (90%, 53/59), by positive PCR (92%, 54/59), or both. In addition, 14% (8/59) were PCR positive for other possible infectious agents (three adults were positive for the eae gene of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli, one adult and two children were positive for adenovirus, one adult positive for norovirus and one child positive for astrovirus). No cultures showed growth of pathogenic bacteria other than Campylobacter jejuni. All blood cultures were negative for pathogenic bacteria, including Campylobacter jejuni.

No adult patients had a positive qSOFA score. Approximately 40% of both children (7/17) and adult (21/50) patients had a SIRS score ≥ 2 criteria. Tachycardia (above the age appropriate reference range) was more common in adults (56%, 28/50) than in children (12%, 2/17, p = 0.002), and vice versa for respiratory rate (50%, 25/50 versus 88%, 15/17, p = 0.009). Fever (≥ 38.5 degrees centigrade) was present in 36% (18/50) of adults and 41% (7/17) of children. There was no apparent correlation between initiation of antibiotics and SIRS or qSOFA criteria. Three adult patients had SpO2 between 90–94% (reference ≥95%) at admission, all with previous cardiovascular disease but no pulmonary disease. One child had SpO2 below 90% (reference ≥95%).

Complications were fatal as one child and one adult died. The adult patient was severely immunocompromised due to treatment for an underlying condition. The child died of sepsis caused by Streptococcus pyogenes with concomitant Campylobacter gastroenteritis. One adult suffered from peri-myocarditis in the course of the infection. Two adults and three children were readmitted for persisting diarrhea or bloody stools within two weeks of discharge.

Discussion

Several clinical reports on waterborne outbreaks of Campylobacter have been published over the previous three decades, including many in the Nordic countries [8, 1014]. Clinical features of patients with campylobacteriosis have also been well documented [1519], including among pediatric patients [15, 2022]. However, very few studies with a clinical focus on hospitalized patients in the setting of an outbreak have been published. The present study is the largest published on hospitalized patients from a single clonal outbreak, and information on clinical characteristics of this patient group could be useful for emergency room clinicians.

The demographic curve was biphasic and showed a typical pattern where infants, toddlers and middle-aged adults were represented. Distribution of age and sex in hospitalized patients were similar to those of contacts made to the local primary health care services during the outbreak [7], except that infants and toddlers dominated among children, and no adolescents were admitted. Several reports [17, 18, 23] have found similar demographic profiles of patients affected by campylobacteriosis, although a higher proportion of young adults tend to be admitted than in our cohort [24, 25]. Demographic data from Askøy shows that persons in their twenties are less numerous than both younger and older age groups [26]. Since Askoy is a relatively small municipality, one possible explanation might be that persons in this age group gravitate towards the neighboring city of Bergen for its educational and cultural institutions. However, the contacts made to the Askoy primary health care services during the outbreak were found to be evenly distributed among age groups [7].

Comorbidities were common in both adults and children. Based on data from Statistics Norway, showing that 1% of the adult (≥16 years) population suffer from chronic renal failure, patients admitted with this comorbidity were over-represented in our cohort (22%). The prevalence of epilepsy and constipation among children in our patient material was similar to that found in national data, suggesting that these conditions did not increase the risk for hospitalization during the outbreak [27].

Symptoms were typical for campylobacteriosis, with some differences between adults and children. All patients except one adult reported diarrhea. A Norwegian study of sporadic cases of campylobacteriosis [19] found that 98.5% of patients reported diarrhea, which is in line with our findings. For some symptoms, like abdominal pain, headache, joint pain and chest pain, differences between children and adults could be due to difficulties for young children expressing these complaints as something other than general discomfort. A large study on 662 hospitalized, culture-confirmed patients with campylobacteriosis from USA [25] found that 37% of patients had vomiting, which is similar to our cohort (31%). The percentages of patients with abdominal pain (70%, only adults), fever (74%) and bloody diarrhea (39%) were generally higher than in our material, particularly bloody diarrhea which was low (9%) in the present study. Bloody diarrhea is widely regarded as a common feature of Campylobacter enteritis, and prevalences range from 39% to over 90% [25, 28]. Virulence factors of the particular strain of Campylobacter jejuni is associated with the presence of bloody stools [29], and further genetic studies of the Askøy isolate could potentially reveal the presence of such factors. Other differences in prevalence of symptoms between studies may have several explanations. Reporting methods may vary and a higher threshold for seeking health care could affect severity of illness, and consequently the rate of symptoms, of those hospitalized in Norway and other countries.

There were differences in both dehydration frequencies and treatment strategies between adults and children. More adults than children were dehydrated, had elevated levels of serum creatinine and nearly all adults received intravenous fluids. Since no standardized tool is used systematically among doctors to evaluate if a patient is dehydrated or not, comparison among patients is difficult. Still, it is striking that 92% of adults received intravenous fluids. The reason for this could in part be due to local practices and accustomed routine in the adult Emergency Department, where ordering of blood tests and placement of intravenous cannula is often carried out by nurses as a routine prior or parallel to the clinical assessment by a medical doctor. Given the potentially painful and frightening nature of such procedures on children, pediatricians will more often critically consider the benefit for each patient individually. Fluids need to be ordered according to the child’s weight and degree of dehydration and hence cannot be initiated without the doctor’s involvement. For those who are not severely dehydrated or have an ongoing significant gastrointestinal loss of fluids due to diarrhea or vomiting, an initial attempt at dehydration orally or via feeding tube is often given. In this outbreak, five of ten children who stayed for less than 24 hours were discharged with their caretakers after careful medical assessment and information on how to continue treatment and monitor the condition at home. This strategy could likely be considered more often in the adult Emergency Department, particularly in a setting of a large number of referrals over a short period.

Campylobacteriosis is usually a self-limiting infection. National and international guidelines generally recommend antimicrobial treatment only in invasive cases or patients with risk of severe disease [30, 31]. Nearly half of the children were started on antibiotics for campylobacteriosis upon admission. This is a much higher number than expected in Norway, and particularly when compared to adults of whom approximately one in ten was started on antibiotics despite generally appearing more affected by the disease and having more comorbidity. Norway in general has a rather cautious policy regarding use of antibiotics as compared to other countries [32]. A previous study of sporadic campylobacteriosis in Norway report antibiotic treatment rates of 16% [19]. The study did not differentiate between hospitalized patients and outpatients. A more current study from USA reported treatment rates that were consistent among age groups and hospitalization status, at 35% [25]. Data from the Askoy primary health care services show that approximately 1% of patients who made contact during the current outbreak were prescribed antibiotic treatment. Around the same time as the outbreak was known among health care workers and the population of Askoy, it was discovered that a toddler who died unexpectedly had tested positive for Campylobacter jejuni. Media coverage was extensive. This may have influenced health care seeking behavior and lowered the threshold for primary care doctors to refer children to the hospital.

There are limitations to our study. Even though this was a large outbreak, the number of hospitalized patients was small and statistical analyses were done only when deemed feasible. Clinical data was registered prospectively in electronic patient records by doctors on call, but were extracted retrospectively by the authors. This design may have caused some bias in the recording of symptoms or comorbid conditions as no standardized questionnaires other than what is clinical practice at our hospital was employed. Still, larger cohorts of hospitalized patients during an outbreak of Campylobacter infection will be rare in high-income countries, implying that the insights from the current study is useful for health care planning and patient management both in primary health care and in hospitals.

Conclusions

Among hospitalized patients during this Campylobacter outbreak, adults generally appeared more severely ill than children, as judged by extent of treatment, length of stay, level of serum creatinine and CRP. Adults with chronic renal failure were over-represented. However, fever and vomiting were seen more often in children than adults. Bloody stool was a less prevalent feature than previously reported for campylobacteriosis. Nearly every adult patient was rehydrated by intravenous fluids regardless of apparent degree of dehydration, while oral rehydration was more commonly considered in children. More children were started on treatment with antibiotics than could be expected from national and international guidelines. Media attention around a fatal outcome during the initial phase of an outbreak may have affected the threshold for both referral and clinical decision making in the emergency room.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. Data underlying the results described in this study.

Data on individual participants are anonymized in compliance with GDPR requirements. Categories of patients within a given variable with less than 5 patients are merged or categorized to larger groups (such as age groups). Some variables impossible to categorize had to be removed from the dataset. Variable labels are included in a separate sheet in the Excel file.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

Thanks to study nurses at the Department of Infectious Diseases and the Research department at Haukeland University Hospital for initial coordination.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

NL received a grant from Helse Vest (https://helse-vest.no/, number F-10626).

References

  • 1.Guzman-Herrador B, Carlander A, Ethelberg S, De Blasio BF, Kuusi M, Lund V, et al. Waterborne outbreaks in the Nordic countries, 1998 to 2012. Euro Surveill. 2015;20(24):21160. 10.2807/1560-7917.es2015.20.24.21160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kaakoush NO, Castaño-Rodríguez N, Mitchell HM, Man SM. Global epidemiology of campylobacter infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(3):687–720. 10.1128/CMR.00006-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ternhag A, Törner A, Svensson Å, Giesecke J, Ekdahl K. Mortality following Campylobacter infection: A registry-based linkage study. BMC Infect Dis. 2005;5. 10.1186/1471-2334-5-70 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Garg AX, Pope JE, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Clark WF, Ouimet J. Arthritis risk after acute bacterial gastroenteritis. Rheumatology. 2008;47(2):200–204. 10.1093/rheumatology/kem339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nachamkin I, Allos BM, Ho T. Campylobacter species and Guillain-Barre syndrome. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1998;11(3):555–567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hessulf F, Ljungberg J, Johansson PA, Lindgren M, Engdahl J. Campylobacter jejuni-associated perimyocarditis: Two case reports and review of the literature. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):289. 10.1186/s12879-016-1635-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hyllestad S, Iversen A, MacDonald E, Amato E, Borge BÅS, Bøe A et al. Large waterborne Campylobacter outbreak: Use of multiple approaches to investigate contamination of the drinking water supply system, Norway, June 2019. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(35):pii = 2000011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Engberg J, Gerner-Smidt P, Scheutz F, Nielsen EM, On SLW, Mølbak K. Water-borne Campylobacter jejuni infection in a Danish town-a 6-week continuous source outbreak. Clin Microbiol Infect. 1998;4(11):648–656. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.1998.tb00348.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–810. 10.1001/jama.2016.0287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gubbels SM, Kuhn KG, Larsson JT, Adelhardt M, Engberg J, Ingildsen P, et al. A waterborne outbreak with a single clone of Campylobacter jejuni in the Danish town of Køge in May 2010. Scand J Infect Dis. 2012;44(8):586–594. 10.3109/00365548.2012.655773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jakopanec I, Borgen K, Vold L, Lund H, Forseth T, Hannula R, et al. A large waterborne outbreak of campylobacteriosis in Norway: The need to focus on distribution system safety. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:128. 10.1186/1471-2334-8-128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pitkänen T, Miettinen IT, Nakari UM, Takkinen J, Nieminen K, Siitonen A, et al. Faecal contamination of a municipal drinking water distribution system in association with Campylobacter jejuni infections. J Water Health. 2008;6(3):365–376. 10.2166/wh.2008.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kuusi M, Nuorti JP, Hänninen ML, Koskela M, Jussila V, Kela E, et al. A large outbreak of campylobacteriosis associated with a municipal water supply in Finland. Epidemiol Infect. 2005;133(4):593–601. 10.1017/s0950268805003808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gaardbo Kuhn K, Falkenhorst G, Emborg H-D, Ceper T, Torpdahl M, Krogfelt KA, et al. Epidemiological and serological investigation of a waterborne Campylobacter jejuni outbreak in a Danish town. Epidemiol Infect. 2017;145(4):701–709. 10.1017/S0950268816002788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bae JY, Lee DH, Ko KO, Lim JW, Cheon EJ, Song YH, et al. Clinical manifestation of Campylobacter enteritis in children. Korean J Pediatr. 2018;61(3):84–89. 10.3345/kjp.2018.61.3.84 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Blaser MJ, Berkowitz ID, LaForce FM, Cravens J, Reller LB, Wang WL. Campylobacter enteritis: Clinical and epidemiologic features. Ann Intern Med. 1979;91(2):179–185. 10.7326/0003-4819-91-2-179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Skirrow MB. Campylobacter enteritis: A “new” disease. Br Med J. 1977;2(6078):9–11. 10.1136/bmj.2.6078.9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pitkänen T, Pönkä A, Pettersson T, Kosunen TU. Campylobacter Enteritis in 188 Hospitalized Patients. Arch Intern Med. 1983;143(2):215–219. 10.1001/archinte.1983.00350020033007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kapperud G, Lassen J, Ostroff SM, Aasen S. Clinical features of sporadic campylobacter infections in Norway. Scand J Infect Dis 1992;24(6):741–749. 10.3109/00365549209062459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Uysal G, Doǧru Ü, Aysev D, Karabiber N. Campylobacter jejuni gastroenteritis in Turkish children. Infection. 1997;25(3):159–162. 10.1007/BF02113604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang SC, Chang LY, Hsueh PR, Lu CY, Lee PI, Shao PL, et al. Campylobacter enteritis in children in northern Taiwan—A 7-year experience. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2008;41(5):408–413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rzucidło-Hymczak A, Hymczak H, Plicner D, Olechowska-Jarząb A, Gorczyca A, Stoliński J. Epidemiologic characteristics and clinical course of children with acute gastroenteritis hospitalized in the Department of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Hepatology at John Paul II Hospital in Krakow. Przegl Epidemiol. 2018. January 1;72(3):337–348. 10.32394/pe.72.3.10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pönkä A, Pitkänen T, Sarna S, Kosunen TU. Infection due to campylobacter jejuni: A report of 524 outpatients. Infection. 1984;12(3):175–178. 10.1007/BF01640893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yoo M, Chung SH, Park YS, Oh IH, Chae WY, Kim SH, et al. Clinical Characteristics of Campylobacter Enterocolitis in Korean Adults: A Retrospective Study at a Single Center. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2020;75(4):188–197. 10.4166/kjg.2020.75.4.188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.White AE, Ciampa N, Chen Y, Kirk M, Nestbitt A, Bruce BB, et al. Characteristics of Campylobacter and Salmonella Infections and Acute Gastroenteritis in Older Adults in Australia, Canada, and the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(9):1545–1552. 10.1093/cid/ciy1142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Statistics Norway. 07459: Population by region, age, contents and year [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/07459
  • 27.Norway Statistics. 11190: Long-term illness. Disease, injury or impairment, by sex and age (per cent) 1998–2019 [Internet]. Health, care and social relations, survey on living conditions. 2019. Available from: https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/11190 [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Karmali MA, Fleming PC. Campylobacter enteritis in children. J Pediatr. 1979;94(4):527–33. 10.1016/s0022-3476(79)80004-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tracz DM, Keelan M, Ahmed-Bentley J, Gibreel A, Kowalewska-Grochowska K, Taylor DE. pVir and bloody diarrhea in Campylobacter jejuni enteritis. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(6):838–843. 10.3201/eid1106.041052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Norwegian National Antimicrobial Guidelines for Hospitals [Internet]. Norwegian Directorate of Health [cited 2020 Sep 28]. Available from: http://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/antibiotika-i-sykehus
  • 31.Shane AL, Mody RK, Crump JA, Tarr PI, Steiner TS, Kotloff K, et al. 2017 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Infectious Diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis. 2017. December 15;65(12):e45–80. 10.1093/cid/cix669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.NORM/NORM-VET 2018. Usage of Antimicrobial Agents and Occurence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Norway [Internet]. Tromsø/Oslo; 2019. [cited 2020 Sep 28]. Available from: www.antibiotikaresistens.no [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tai-Heng Chen

18 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-40362

Characteristics of hospitalized patients during a large waterborne outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni in Norway

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mortensen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting

Please update your Methods and Results sections accordingly.

3. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study.

In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors (<18) included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper is well done and interesting. I have a couple of minor suggestions; the paper would benefit from grammatical editing, but these changes are relatively minor. The tables would be improved if the top headers (Total, Adult, Children) were centered over the two columns below. Otherwise, this is an excellent paper and worth publishing.

Reviewer #2: This paper presents the clinical characteristics of hospitalized patienst suffering of campylobacteriosis during a large water-borne outbreak in Norway. The authors included 67 patients in their study.

General comments:

The manuscript is well written and concise.

I understand that the patient included in the study were affected by the Alskoy outbreak previously described in Hyllestad et al. 2020. It would be useful for the reader to add more useful details about the outbreak in the introduction, in particular about the strains that caused the outbreak.

Related to my previous point, the authors noticed lower prevalence of bloody diarrhea in their patent cohort and suggest that this might be related the genetic of the outbreak strain. Since the strains isolated during this outbreak, it might be possible for the authors to substantiate their claim by determining the presence of the associated genes in the sequenced genome. However, it seems that these genomes have not been deposited by Hyllestad et al. in appropriate database, so it might not be trivial to do this analysis.

Specific comments:

The y-axis of figure 2 is confusing since two dataset are presented: onset of symptoms and admission date. I guess the y-axis is also the number of people with onset of symptoms at a particular day of the outbreak? This should be clarified.

Please define CRP.

Reviewer #3: This paper provides a detailed description of hospitalized patients from a waterborne Campy outbreak in Norway using electronic healthcare records. The authors assess factors related to hospitalization and treatments in children and adults.

Minor edits

-line 67: typo “Judged” should be “Judging”

-table 1: in row “Length of stay”, there is a typo “1,5”

-table 3: in the last row, part of the OR appears to be deleted in the pdf I received

-line 215: typo “38,5”

Methods

-lines 89-124: excellent description of the data collected and definitions used

Results

-figures are very nicely made

-Table 1: consider adding the ages for adults/children under each heading i.e. Adults (17+) Children (<17) just as a reminder for readers

-Table 1: because you use (% total) to refer to % of each category for most of the table (for Female and Comorbidity categories), it is a little confusing to use if for the first row (Total) where you mean % of all patients. I suggest you change the first row label to “Total, N (% of all patients)”. Also consider changing the style this table to the same as tables 2 and 3 (i.e. separate columns for n and %)

-lines 158-163: It might be helpful to include the incubation time for Campy in this section

-lines 208-209: Do you have any additional information on what this PCR was detecting?

Discussion

-line 244: Do you have any insights into why this might be? Are young adults less likely to seek healthcare or do you think they have less severe symptoms?

-lines 303-304: Is this 1% among all patients for all primary healthcare services? Or just infectious disease patients?

Overall comments

This is a well-written paper and with a comprehensive and detailed clinical dataset. The information provided in the paper will be useful for clinicians or public health representatives in outbreak situations. The data additionally have potential for use in other studies or to answer additional research questions.

I have no major concerns, only suggestions for edits and clarifications in the text.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Rachel Sippy

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 23;16(3):e0248464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248464.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Feb 2021

Response to reviewers

Manuscript: Mortensen et al. Characteristics of hospitalized patients during a large waterborne outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni in Norway

Please find our responses marked by an asterix* below each comment from editor and reviewers. All changes are all visible in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”.

Reviewer #1:

This paper is well done and interesting. I have a couple of minor suggestions; the paper would benefit from grammatical editing, but these changes are relatively minor. The tables would be improved if the top headers (Total, Adult, Children) were centered over the two columns below. Otherwise, this is an excellent paper and worth publishing.

*We thank the reviewer for the kind remarks on our paper. Tables have been formatted so that the top headers center over their respective columns.

Reviewer #2:

This paper presents the clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients suffering of campylobacteriosis during a large water-borne outbreak in Norway. The authors included 67 patients in their study.

General comments:

The manuscript is well written and concise.

*We thank the reviewer for these kind remarks.

I understand that the patient included in the study were affected by the Askoy outbreak previously described in Hyllestad et al. 2020. It would be useful for the reader to add more useful details about the outbreak in the introduction, in particular about the strains that caused the outbreak.

*We have in the revised manuscript introduction supplied more details on the outbreak itself with an emphasis on the outbreak strain of C. jejuni (lines 62-68)

Related to my previous point, the authors noticed lower prevalence of bloody diarrhea in their patent cohort and suggest that this might be related the genetic of the outbreak strain. Since the strains isolated during this outbreak, it might be possible for the authors to substantiate their claim by determining the presence of the associated genes in the sequenced genome. However, it seems that these genomes have not been deposited by Hyllestad et al. in appropriate database, so it might not be trivial to do this analysis.

*We agree that a possible correlation between the presence of genes coding for specific virulence factors and our clinical data would be most interesting to explore. The C. jejuni isolates from patients in our study may become available for whole genome sequencing at a later stage.

Specific comments:

The y-axis of figure 2 is confusing since two dataset are presented: onset of symptoms and admission date. I guess the y-axis is also the number of people with onset of symptoms at a particular day of the outbreak? This should be clarified.

*We agree with the reviewer and have changed the figure 2 text has been changed to better describe the y-axis.

Please define CRP.

*CRP has been defined (line 107).

Reviewer #3

This paper provides a detailed description of hospitalized patients from a waterborne Campy outbreak in Norway using electronic healthcare records. The authors assess factors related to hospitalization and treatments in children and adults.

Minor edits

-line 67: typo “Judged” should be “Judging”

-table 1: in row “Length of stay”, there is a typo “1,5”

-table 3: in the last row, part of the OR appears to be deleted in the pdf I received

-line 215: typo “38,5”

*Thank you for pointing this out. Typos have been corrected and the p-value that was missing is added.

Methods

-lines 89-124: excellent description of the data collected and definitions used

Results

- figures are very nicely made

-Table 1: consider adding the ages for adults/children under each heading i.e. Adults (17+) Children (<17) just as a reminder for readers

*This is a good suggestion. The table has been corrected accordingly. Note also that we have specified the definition of a child in the text (line 113). It originally said that a patient was considered a child if sixteen years or younger. It should say below sixteen years, and this has been corrected. No included patients are around this age. All statistics have been performed based on the intended definition.

-Table 1: because you use (% total) to refer to % of each category for most of the table (for Female and Comorbidity categories), it is a little confusing to use if for the first row (Total) where you mean % of all patients. I suggest you change the first row label to “Total, N (% of all patients)”. Also consider changing the style this table to the same as tables 2 and 3 (i.e. separate columns for n and %)

*We have changed the first row label as suggested. As the variables in table 1 have different parameters (mean, range, %, etc.) for each row the style with separate columns for “n” and “%” used in tables 2 and 3 has not been applied for table 1.

-lines 158-163: It might be helpful to include the incubation time for Campy in this section

*We agree that the incubation time would be helpful. Since we unfortunately do not know the exact date of exposure for each patient we have not been able to calculate incubation time.

-lines 208-209: Do you have any additional information on what this PCR was detecting?

Information on additional PCR results have been added to the text (lines 208-214).

Discussion

-line 244: Do you have any insights into why this might be? Are young adults less likely to seek healthcare or do you think they have less severe symptoms?

*Thank you for interesting questions. It appears that the reason for why young adults tend to be over-represented in outbreaks of campylobacteriosis is not well understood among researchers. Also, there is a difference in age distribution for campylobacteriosis between high- and low-income countries, possibly due to degree of exposure during childhood and acquired immunity. As to why the age distribution in our cohort differed from what is most often reported in high income countries we hypothesize that part of the reason could be the demographics in Askøy municipality where young adults in their twenties are less numerous compared to other age groips. We have added this to the discussion, including a reference to Statistics Norway that shows the age distribution of Askøy inhabitants https://www.ssb.no/kommunefakta/askoy (lines 250-255).

-lines 303-304: Is this 1% among all patients for all primary healthcare services? Or just infectious disease patients?

*The 1% is among all patients who made contact to the Askøy primary health care services during the initial phase of the outbreak. This has now been clarified in the text (lines 314-315).

Overall comments

This is a well-written paper and with a comprehensive and detailed clinical dataset. The information provided in the paper will be useful for clinicians or public health representatives in outbreak situations. The data additionally have potential for use in other studies or to answer additional research questions.

I have no major concerns, only suggestions for edits and clarifications in the text.

*We thank the reviewer for kind and constructive remarks.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Tai-Heng Chen

1 Mar 2021

Characteristics of hospitalized patients during a large waterborne outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni in Norway

PONE-D-20-40362R1

Dear Dr. Mortensen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Tai-Heng Chen

12 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-40362R1

Characteristics of hospitalized patients during a large waterborne outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni in Norway

Dear Dr. Hanevik:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tai-Heng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset. Data underlying the results described in this study.

    Data on individual participants are anonymized in compliance with GDPR requirements. Categories of patients within a given variable with less than 5 patients are merged or categorized to larger groups (such as age groups). Some variables impossible to categorize had to be removed from the dataset. Variable labels are included in a separate sheet in the Excel file.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES