Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14650540›Full record

ReviewActa veterinaria Scandinavica2003

Heat resistance in liquids of Enterococcus spp., Listeria spp., Escherichia coli, Yersinia enterocolitica, Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp.

S Sörqvist

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The efficacy and safety of high-pressure processing of food.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Household pasteurization of drinking-water: the chulli water-treatment system.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2006
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

S SörqvistDepartment of Food Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. lmhyg@slu.se

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the work was to collect, evaluate, summarize and compare heat resistance data reported for Campylobacter, Enterococcus, Escherichia, Listeria, Salmonella and Yersinia spp. The work was limited to resistance in liquids with pH values 6-8. Results obtained under similar experimental conditions were sought. Thermal destruction lines for the various bacterial groups studied were constructed using log10 D values and treatment temperatures. There was a good linear relationship between log10 D and temperature with Escherichia coli, listerias and salmonellas. For campylobacters, enterococci and yersinias the relationships were weaker but, nevertheless, present. Using the slopes of the lines and their 95% confidence limits, z values and their 95% confidence limits were calculated. z values were compared with z values obtained from reports. The equations for the lines were also used for calculation of predicted means of D values at various treatment temperatures. 95% confidence limits on predicted means of D values and on predicted individual D values were also calculated. Lines and values are shown in figures and tables. Differences in heat resistance noted between and within the bacterial groups studied are discussed.

Indexed as

Hot TemperatureBacteriaConfidence IntervalsHydrogen-Ion Concentration

Identifiers

PMID14650540
PMCPMC1831557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.