The second sentence in the last paragraph should have read: "So even if its test results are negative a patient..."
On page 390 of the article "Lecture Link: The emergence of a 'new' parvovirus" in the September 2012 issue, the second sentence in the last paragraph should have read: "So even if its test results are negative, a patient strongly suspected of having parvovirus infection (based on signalment and clinical signs) could still have the infection and should be treated appropriately."
We regret any confusion this error may have caused.
From poultry to public health: Understanding the H5N1 threat
October 29th 2024Veterinary and public health officials share the important roles of surveillance and prevention strategies, insights on the virus's transmission pathways, historical context, the One Health approach, and highlights effective precautionary measures to mitigate H5N1 risks.
Read More