Diagnostic Prioritization in Acute Febrile Illness of Zoonotic Origin

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-11

Key Takeaways

• Prioritizing zoonotic causes of acute febrile illness in companion animals hinges on systematically evaluating signalment, vaccination status, vector exposure, travel history, occupational/environmental contacts, and compatible clinical syndromes to modify pretest probability.
• Key diagnostic clues include fever patterns (sustained high fever with relative bradycardia is atypical in dogs), specific vector exposure (tick removal or endemic areas suggest rickettsial/borrelial disease), and travel to endemic regions within the incubation period.
• Syndrome-based prioritization is critical: fever with thrombocytopenia strongly suggests vector-borne bacterial infection, while fever with jaundice, azotemia, and thrombocytopenia is classic for leptospirosis, particularly with water exposure.
• Acute-phase PCR on whole blood is preferred for rickettsial and leptospiral diagnosis, while serology requires paired samples collected 2-4 weeks apart for definitive diagnosis of many zoonoses like Coxiella burnetii and Leptospira spp.
• Empirical therapy with doxycycline is often indicated for suspected rickettsiosis in dogs with fever, thrombocytopenia, and tick exposure, as delaying treatment risks severe vasculitis and neurologic disease, even before diagnostic confirmation.
• For suspected leptospirosis, empirical antimicrobial therapy and supportive care are justified while PCR results are pending, given the potential for acute kidney failure and pulmonary hemorrhage, which are exacerbated by treatment delays.

Acute febrile illness in companion animals presents a recurring diagnostic challenge. The differential list is broad, the clinical signs are often nonspecific, and the zoonotic potential of several candidate pathogens elevates the stakes of every case. This article provides a structured framework for prioritizing zoonotic causes of acute fever in dogs and cats, with emphasis on clinical and epidemiological clues that can be elicited during history taking and physical examination. It is written for veterinary researchers and clinicians who require a defensible, evidence-informed approach to case workup instead of an exhaustive enumeration of every possible pathogen.

The framework rests on a simple premise: the probability of a given zoonotic diagnosis is not uniform across patients, and the factors that shift that probability are largely identifiable before laboratory results return. Signalment, vaccination status, vector exposure, travel history, occupational and environmental contacts, and the presence of compatible clinical syndromes each modify the pretest probability of specific infections. The clinician who systematically gathers and weighs these variables can rank differentials, select the most informative diagnostic tests, and initiate appropriate isolation precautions while awaiting confirmation. This article addresses the diagnostic reasoning process itself, from initial risk stratification through test selection and interpretation, and it assumes the reader is familiar with the clinical syndromes and laboratory methods referenced throughout.

The approach is deliberately anchored in the One Health paradigm, which recognizes that human, animal, and environmental health are interdependent and that zoonotic disease control requires cross-sector collaboration WHO One Health initiative. Veterinary clinicians are frequently the first point of contact for zoonotic pathogens, and their diagnostic decisions have direct implications for household members and other animal contacts CDC One Health and zoonotic disease resources. The framework presented here is intended to support those decisions in a practical, reproducible manner.

At a Glance

The Diagnostic Reasoning Framework

Establishing the Clinical Baseline

Before assigning probabilities to specific zoonoses, the clinician must confirm that fever is present and characterize it accurately. Rectal temperature above 39.2°C in dogs and 39.4°C in cats is generally considered febrile, though reference ranges vary modestly between sources and the MSD Veterinary Manual provides species-specific guidance MSD Veterinary Manual professional reference. A single normal temperature reading does not exclude fever, particularly in cats, where stress hyperthermia can confound measurement. Serial temperature assessment, ideally in a quiet environment, is warranted when the history is suggestive.

The duration of fever is equally important. Acute febrile illness, defined here as fever of less than seven days duration, has a different differential than fever of unknown origin, which conventionally requires documented fever for at least three weeks with an undetermined cause after initial investigation. This article addresses the acute presentation, where zoonotic pathogens are proportionally more common and where early diagnostic intervention has the greatest impact on outcome.

Risk Stratification by Exposure History

The exposure history is the single most powerful tool for prioritizing zoonotic differentials. It must be obtained systematically, and it must include questions that some owners may find unusual or intrusive. The clinician should inquire about the animal's roaming behavior, recent boarding or grooming, contact with wildlife or livestock, and any known tick or flea infestation. The presence of standing water, flooded fields, or recent heavy rainfall in the region is relevant to leptospirosis risk, as the organizm is waterborne and transmitted through contact with urine-contaminated environments leptospirosis as a neglected tropical zoonotic infection. Occupational exposure of the owner, such as work on a farm, in a slaughterhouse, or in veterinary practice itself, may also be relevant, since animals can serve as sentinels for pathogens circulating in the household environment.

Geographic location and travel history refine the differential further. A dog with acute fever and thrombocytopenia in the southeastern United States is more likely to have ehrlichiosis or Rocky Mountain spotted fever than leptospirosis, whereas the same presentation in the Pacific Northwest raises different considerations. International travel expands the list substantially. Rift Valley fever, for example, is restricted to sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and while it primarily affects ruminants, it causes acute febrile illness in humans and has been studied extensively for its pathogenesis the pathogenesis of Rift Valley fever. A companion animal with fever and a history of travel to an endemic region should prompt consideration of region-specific pathogens that would otherwise be absent from the differential.

Syndrome-Based Prioritization

Once the exposure history is complete, the physical examination and minimum laboratory database allow the clinician to group patients by clinical syndrome. Fever with thrombocytopenia and petechiation suggests a rickettsial or ehrlichial infection. Fever with polyarthropathy and stiffness in a young, large-breed dog raises the possibility of tick-borne disease. Fever with jaundice, azotemia, and thrombocytopenia is classic for leptospirosis, particularly in dogs with access to wildlife urine or standing water leptospirosis clinical manifestations and diagnosis. Fever with respiratory signs, including cough and tachypnea, may indicate Q fever, particularly in animals with known exposure to ruminants or their birth products Q fever as a zoonotic disease caused by Coxiella burnetii.

These syndromic patterns are not pathognomonic, and overlap is considerable. Their value lies in prioritization, not exclusion. A dog with fever, thrombocytopenia, and no other localizing signs is more likely to have a vector-borne bacterial infection than a viral infection, and the diagnostic plan should reflect that probability. Conversely, a cat with fever and no other abnormalities, particularly one with a history of outdoor access, may have a viral infection such as feline calicivirus or feline leukemia virus, and zoonotic considerations are proportionally less prominent.

The Role of Emerging and Unusual Pathogens

The differential for zoonotic acute febrile illness is not static. Emerging pathogens and newly recognized transmission routes periodically expand the list, and the veterinary clinician must remain alert to this possibility. Porcine deltacoronavirus, for example, has been identified in plasma samples of children with acute undifferentiated febrile illness in Haiti, with genomic evidence indicating at least two independent zoonotic transmissions from pigs independent infections of porcine deltacoronavirus among Haitian children. While this virus has not been established as a cause of febrile illness in companion animals, the finding illustrates the capacity of animal coronaviruses to cross species barriers and cause human disease. Similar surveillance efforts in veterinary populations may identify additional zoonotic pathogens in the future.

Louping ill virus provides a contrasting example of a well-characterized zoonosis with a restricted geographic range. This tick-borne flavivirus causes febrile illness and encephalitis in sheep, cattle, and grouse in upland areas of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and it has been recognized as a zoonotic agent, particularly among individuals whose occupation involves contact with sheep louping ill virus as an endemic tick-borne disease of Great Britain. Companion animals that accompany owners into tick-infested upland areas could theoretically be exposed, although clinical disease in dogs and cats is not well documented. The practical lesson is that regional endemicity and vector presence are powerful predictors of disease, and the clinician should maintain awareness of locally relevant pathogens.

Diagnostic Test Selection and Timing

The diagnostic plan should be guided by the prioritized differential, not by indiscriminate testing. For suspected rickettsial or ehrlichial infection, acute-phase PCR on whole blood is the test of choice, with serology reserved for confirmation and retrospective diagnosis. For leptospirosis, PCR on blood and urine, combined with the microscopic agglutination test on paired serum samples, provides the best diagnostic yield leptospirosis diagnosis and treatment review. For Q fever, serology remains the mainstay of diagnosis, but the requirement for paired samples to demonstrate a significant rise in antibody titers means that treatment decisions must often be made before laboratory confirmation is available Q fever diagnosis based on serum antibody titers.

The timing of sample collection is critical. PCR for rickettsial organizms is most sensitive during the acute febrile phase, before antibiotic therapy is initiated. Serology obtained too early may be negative, and a single negative titer does not exclude disease. The clinician should communicate this limitation to the owner and plan for convalescent sampling if the initial results are inconclusive.

Structured Assessment Sequence for Suspected Zoonotic Fever

The clinical evaluation proceeds through defined stages, each with explicit exit criteria. The sequence assumes the patient is stable enough for sequential assessment, hemodynamically compromised animals require immediate stabilization before or during diagnostic sampling.

Stage 1: Confirm True Fever and Characterize the Febrile Response

Rectal temperature above the species reference range must be distinguished from hyperthermia of exertion, stress, or environmental heat. In dogs, stress hyperthermia commonly reaches 39.5 to 40.0°C in the examination room. Cats frequently exhibit transient temperature elevation during transport. Repeat measurement after 15 to 20 minutes of quiet handling in a cool environment separates true fever from situational hyperthermia.

The febrile curve itself carries diagnostic weight. Sustained fever with minimal diurnal variation is typical of bacterial sepsis and leptospirosis. Intermittent or remittent fever suggests rickettsial infection, immune-mediated disease, or abscess formation. The absence of a classic pattern does not exclude any diagnosis, but the presence of a pattern narrows the initial probability set.

Stage 2: Localize the Inflammatory Focus

A complete physical examination with particular attention to the following sites determines whether the fever is explained by an identifiable inflammatory lesion:

• Mucous membranes: petechiae, icterus, injection
• Lymph nodes: size, symmetry, pain on palpation
• Joints: effusion, pain on manipulation
• Kidneys: renomegaly, pain on palpation
• Liver: hepatomegaly, cranial abdominal pain
• Lungs: crackles, increased bronchovesicular sounds
• Skin: ticks, bite wounds, abscesses, migrating larvae
• Eyes: uveitis, retinal hemorrhage, chorioretinitis

Localizing signs redirect the differential list. Polyarthritis with fever in a dog with tick exposure prioritizes rickettsial disease. Icterus with fever and thrombocytopenia in a dog with water exposure prioritizes leptospirosis. The absence of localizing signs after thorough examination defines the undifferentiated fever pattern that requires broader testing.

Stage 3: Apply the Exposure-Weighted Differential Table

The following table integrates clinical signs, exposure history, and diagnostic testing priorities. It is designed for rapid bedside use and assumes that point-of-care testing availability varies by practice setting.

The table is a prioritization aid, not a complete list. The WHO One Health framework emphasizes that zoonotic disease risk is jointly determined by human, animal, and environmental factors, and the exposure history must be interpreted in this integrated context.

Stage 4: Select and Sequence Diagnostic Testing

Test selection follows the principle that the most actionable result, not the most comprehensive panel, guides initial management. Three factors determine test priority: the probability of the disease given exposure and signs, the time to result, and whether the result changes immediate therapy.

Acute-phase testing should include:

• Complete blood count with manual smear review
• Serum biochemistry panel with electrolytes
• Urinalysis with sediment examination
• Coagulation profile if hemorrhage or thrombocytopenia is present
• Point-of-care serology for endemic rickettsial and leptospiral disease where available

PCR testing is preferred for leptospirosis and rickettsiosis during the acute phase because these assays detect organizms before seroconversion occurs. The review of leptospirosis as a neglected tropical zoonotic infection notes that clinical manifestations range from flu-like illness to acute kidney failure, pneumonia, jaundice, and pulmonary hemorrhage, and that early diagnosis depends on recognizing this spectrum. PCR on blood or urine is the most sensitive early test, but antibiotic administration rapidly reduces circulating organizms, so samples must be collected before or at the time of treatment initiation.

Serology retains a central role for confirmation and for diseases where PCR is insensitive or unavailable. Paired acute and convalescent samples collected 2 to 4 weeks apart are required for definitive diagnosis of most zoonotic bacterial infections. A single elevated titer supports exposure but does not confirm active infection in endemic regions.

Stage 5: Decide When to Treat Before Confirmation

Empirical therapy is indicated when the clinical picture is consistent with a treatable zoonotic disease and the patient is deteriorating. The decision threshold varies by disease and species.

For suspected rickettsiosis in a dog with fever, thrombocytopenia, and tick exposure, doxycycline should be initiated immediately. Serologic confirmation is retrospective. Waiting for test results risks progression to severe vasculitis and neurologic disease.

For suspected leptospirosis in a dog with fever, renal pain, and water exposure, empirical treatment with appropriate antimicrobial therapy and supportive care is justified while PCR results are pending. The updated review of leptospirosis identifies acute kidney failure and pulmonary hemorrhage as major causes of morbidity and mortality, both of which are more likely when treatment is delayed.

For suspected Q fever in a cat or dog with exposure to parturient ruminants, the decision is less urgent. The review of Q fever notes that infection in animals is most often asymptomatic, and that treatment must be adapted to the acute or chronic pattern. Empirical therapy is reasonable when the patient is febrile and the exposure history is strong, but the index of suspicion for alternative diagnoses should remain high.

Documentation and Communication of Findings

The medical record must capture the diagnostic reasoning process, also the test results. Document the following elements for every febrile patient evaluated for zoonotic disease:

• Temperature curve with measurement times and conditions
• Exposure history with specific dates, locations, and animal contacts
• Physical examination findings organized by body system
• Differential diagnosis list with the probability ranking and the reasoning behind it
• Tests submitted with collection dates, sample types, and laboratory
• Treatment initiated with the rationale for empirical therapy
• Owner communication regarding zoonotic risk and precautions

The CDC One Health resources emphasize that zoonotic disease control requires coordination between human and animal health sectors. When a zoonotic infection is confirmed or strongly suspected, the attending veterinarian should discuss the implications for all household members and other animals with the owner, and recommend that exposed persons seek medical evaluation if febrile illness develops.

Species-Specific Adjustments

The diagnostic approach differs between dogs and cats in several respects. Cats are more likely to be infected with Bartonella species and less likely to develop clinical leptospirosis than dogs. Feline rickettsiosis is less common but occurs in endemic regions. Cats with fever and no localizing signs should have Bartonella serology and PCR included in the initial panel if flea exposure is confirmed or suspected.

The MSD Veterinary Manual provides species-specific guidance on clinical signs, diagnostic test interpretation, and treatment protocols that should be consulted when managing individual patients. Regional differences in disease prevalence and vector distribution also change the pretest probability of each diagnosis, and the differential table should be adjusted accordingly.

Monitoring Parameters During the Diagnostic Period

Serial assessment during the first 48 to 72 hours detects progression and guides treatment adjustment:

Deterioration in any parameter triggers reassessment of the differential list and consideration of additional diagnoses. The WOAH terrestrial animal health standards provide guidance on disease notification requirements that may apply when certain zoonotic pathogens are confirmed, and the attending veterinarian should be aware of local reporting obligations.

Recognized Complications and Failure Modes

The diagnostic pathway for zoonotic acute febrile illness fails in predictable ways. The most consequential failure is premature closure, where a compatible clinical picture ends further inquiry. A dog with fever, thrombocytopenia, and tick exposure receives doxycycline for suspected anaplasmosis, but the same presentation in a region with endemic leptospirosis requires different risk weighting. Leptospirosis is a reemerging cause of acute febrile illness with manifestations ranging from flu-like signs to acute kidney failure and pulmonary hemorrhage, and it carries direct human infection risk through the same urine-contaminated environment Leptospirosis: a neglected tropical zoonotic infection of public health importance. The corrective action is to maintain a working differential that is exposure-weighted, not prevalence-weighted alone.

A second failure mode is the assumption that a negative acute-phase test excludes infection. Antibody-based assays for Coxiella burnetii and Leptospira spp. frequently return negative results early in the febrile course, and the diagnosis of Q fever in particular often requires demonstration of a significant rise in serum antibody titers over time Q Fever. Clinicians who interpret a single negative titer as exclusionary will miss both acute and chronic disease. Paired convalescent serology, collected 2 to 4 weeks apart, remains the corrective standard.

A third failure is the neglect of vector ecology as a dynamic variable. Louping ill virus is distributed in close association with Ixodes ricinus in upland areas of the UK and Ireland, and its range may shift with changing environmental conditions Louping ill virus: an endemic tick-borne disease of Great Britain. A history of "no tick exposure" based on owner report is unreliable when the animal ranges in tick habitat. The same principle applies to mosquito-borne pathogens such as Rift Valley fever virus, where transmission depends on vector presence and virus replication in domestic ruminants amplifies human risk The pathogenesis of Rift Valley fever.

Common Errors and Corrective Actions

Less experienced clinicians often over-rely on the magnitude of fever to discriminate between causes. Fever height has poor discriminatory value among the zoonoses considered here. A more useful discriminator is the pattern of organ involvement combined with the exposure window. Students frequently fail to ask about indirect exposures, such as contact with livestock through a neighbor's property, contaminated water sources, or wildlife carcasses. These questions are not optional, they are the primary data for risk stratification.

Another recurring error is treating all tick-borne diseases as a single diagnostic category. The clinical overlap between spotted fever group rickettsiae, anaplasmosis, and ehrlichiosis is substantial, but their zoonotic implications and chronic sequelae differ. The same applies to the assumption that a negative blood smear excludes hemoparasitemia. Smear sensitivity is low and operator-dependent. Molecular testing is preferred where available.

A third error is delaying diagnostic sampling until after antimicrobial administration. Blood for PCR and acute serology should be collected before treatment whenever the patient is stable enough to permit it. Once doxycycline is started, rickettsial PCR may rapidly become negative, and the diagnostic window closes.

Limitations of the Current Evidence

The evidence base for zoonotic acute febrile illness in companion animals is uneven. Much of the human literature, including studies of acute febrile illness in endemic regions, demonstrates high rates of co-exposure to multiple pathogens. In one study at a human-wildlife-livestock interface, 77% of febrile patients and 98% of livestock workers had at least one positive test, with evidence of past infection to Rickettsia spp. and C. burnetii exceeding 60% in some groups Prevalence of Selected Zoonotic Diseases and Risk Factors at a Human-Wildlife-Livestock Interface. This co-exposure complicates attribution of causation in individual animals and argues for a syndromic approach instead of a single-pathogen hunt.

Expert opinion still differs on the value of empirical doxycycline in stable patients with suspected tick-borne disease. Some authorities advocate immediate treatment given the low risk of the drug and the diagnostic difficulty, others prefer to confirm before treating to preserve diagnostic clarity. Both positions are defensible, and the choice should be documented in the medical record.

Emerging pathogens add further uncertainty. Porcine deltacoronavirus has been identified in plasma samples of children with acute undifferentiated febrile illness, with genomic evidence of at least two independent zoonotic transmissions Independent infections of porcine deltacoronavirus among Haitian children. The extent to which companion animals serve as bridging hosts for such agents is unknown, and routine diagnostic panels do not cover them.

Referral, Consultation, and Regulatory Reporting

Referral is warranted when the patient deteriorates despite treatment, when diagnostic capacity is unavailable locally, or when the differential includes a pathogen with human health implications that exceed local expertise. Specialist consultation with a veterinary internal medicine or infectious disease service is appropriate for persistent fever beyond 5 to 7 days with no localizing signs after initial testing.

Laboratory involvement should be proactive. Public health and veterinary diagnostic laboratories can advise on sample type, transport medium, and test sequencing for suspected zoonoses. They should be contacted before sampling when a notifiable or high-consequence pathogen is suspected.

Regulatory reporting obligations vary by jurisdiction and by pathogen. The World Organization for Animal Health maintains terrestrial animal health standards that define reportable diseases and trade-related control measures WOAH terrestrial animal health standards. Veterinarians must know the reporting requirements for their region, particularly for agents such as Rift Valley fever virus, which has defined epizootic potential and human health consequences The pathogenesis of Rift Valley fever. When in doubt, contact the relevant animal health authority before the result is confirmed, early notification is always preferable to delayed reporting.

Frequently Asked Questions

How Should I Prioritize Testing When the Owner Has Limited Financial Resources?

Begin with the tests that most directly alter immediate management decisions. A complete blood count, serum biochemistry panel, and urinalysis provide baseline organ function and inflammatory pattern data at relatively low cost. If leptospirosis is suspected from exposure history, acute serology or PCR may be justified before broader panels, given the therapeutic and public health implications. For suspected tick-borne disease, a single convalescent sample collected 2 to 4 weeks later can confirm exposure when acute testing is unaffordable. Communicate clearly that a negative acute result does not exclude infection and that repeat sampling may be required. Reference laboratory pricing varies substantially, so telephone cost estimates before testing. The MSD Veterinary Manual provides guidance on interpreting screening test limitations in resource-constrained settings.

What Do I Do When Point-of-Care Testing Is Unavailable or Results Are Discordant?

When in-house testing is unavailable, collect and store paired serum samples. The first sample should be obtained at presentation and frozen at minus 20 degrees Celsius or colder. A convalescent sample taken 2 to 4 weeks later allows paired serology, which remains the reference approach for many zoonoses including Q fever and leptospirosis. Discordant results between point-of-care and reference laboratory tests should be resolved by repeating the assay at the reference laboratory and by interpreting results against the clinical timeline. Seroconversion requires time, so a single negative result early in illness carries little weight. The WHO One Health Initiative emphasizes cross-sector laboratory coordination that can assist in locating regional diagnostic capacity.

How Does the Diagnostic Approach Differ in Cats Compared with Dogs?

Cats present two distinct challenges. First, many zoonotic agents cause subclinical or mild disease in cats, so fever may be the only abnormality. Second, the differential list differs. Leptospirosis is less commonly diagnosed in cats but does occur, and seroprevalence studies support exposure. Coxiella burnetii infection in cats is frequently asymptomatic, yet infected queens can shed organizms during parturition, creating an exposure risk for owners. Tick-borne agents such as Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species are less common in cats than dogs in most regions. Bartonella henselae should remain on the differential for febrile cats with a history of flea exposure. The CDC One Health resources note that feline zoonotic risk is often underappreciated because clinical signs in the cat are minimal.

What Records Should I Maintain for a Suspected Zoonotic Fever Case?

Document the febrile curve with time and temperature readings, the complete exposure history including travel, vector contact, and other species in the household, and the rationale for each diagnostic test ordered. Record negative results as explicitly as positive ones, since a negative convalescent sample may be the only evidence excluding a particular agent. Note any personal protective measures used by staff and owners. If a reportable disease is suspected, record the date and time of the notification to the relevant authority. The WOAH terrestrial animal health standards outline surveillance and reporting expectations that apply to listed zoonotic diseases, and contemporaneous records support both clinical continuity and regulatory compliance.

How Should I Communicate Zoonotic Risk to the Owner Without Causing Panic?

Frame the discussion around concrete precautions instead of abstract risk. Identify the specific transmission routes relevant to the suspected agent, such as contact with urine, birthing fluids, or tick bites, and give the owner explicit actions to reduce exposure. For leptospirosis, this includes glove use when handling urine-soaked bedding and restricting children from the animal's urination areas. For Q fever, pregnant household members should avoid contact with the animal's birth products. Explain that the diagnostic process is designed to rule out serious and treatable conditions in order of likelihood. The AVMA practice resources provide communication guidance for discussing zoonotic disease with clients in a measured, evidence-based manner.

When Should I Treat Empirically While Awaiting Confirmatory Results?

Treat empirically when the suspected disease is rapidly progressive, when the zoonotic risk to humans is substantial, or when the diagnostic window for a treatable condition will close. Leptospirosis is the clearest example: doxycycline is well tolerated, and delaying treatment while awaiting serology can allow progression to renal or hepatic failure. Empirical therapy should be reassessed when results return, and the owner must understand that a clinical response supports but does not confirm the diagnosis. Document the rationale for empirical treatment in the medical record. For diseases without safe or effective treatment, such as louping ill virus, supportive care is the only option, and the published review of louping ill notes that no specific antiviral therapy exists for this flavivirus infection.

Related Clinical & Scientific Guides

• Wildlife Disease Surveillance: Designing and Implementing a One Health Program
• Biosecurity Risk Assessment for Livestock Operations: A Practical Framework
• Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis in Veterinary Personnel

References and Further Reading

• The pathogenesis of Rift Valley fever.. 2011.
• Leptospirosis: a neglected tropical zoonotic infection of public health importance-an updated review.. 2020.
• Q Fever.. 2010.
• Louping ill virus: an endemic tick-borne disease of Great Britain.. 2014.
• Prevalence of Selected Zoonotic Diseases and Risk Factors at a Human-Wildlife-Livestock Interface in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.. 2018.
• Independent infections of porcine deltacoronavirus among Haitian children.. 2021.
• WHO One Health Initiative. WHO.
• CDC One Health and Zoonotic Disease Resources. CDC.
• MSD Veterinary Manual, Professional Edition. MSD Veterinary Manual.

Related Articles

• Zoonotic Disease Diagnostic Testing: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Interpretation
• Zoonotic Parasites in Wildlife: Diagnostic Challenges and Public Health Implications
• Zoonotic Disease Risk Assessment in Veterinary Practice
• Veterinary Epidemiology: Study Designs for Zoonotic Disease Research
• Zoonotic Disease Risk Communication in Veterinary Practice

This article is educational professional reference material for veterinary audiences. It is not a substitute for veterinary diagnosis, individual clinical judgment, current product labeling, or applicable regulatory requirements.