ArticleVeterinary research communications2004
Listeria monocytogenes in products of animal origin in Turkey.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prevalence of Pathogens in Poultry Meat: A Meta-Analysis of European Published Surveys.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A study was carried out on 430 samples of different foodstuffs (soft cheese, raw chicken, minced beef, sausage, fish) and 400 carcase samples (sheep, young and adult cattle) for screening of Listeria monocytogenes. It was found that only one of the samples contained L. monocytogenes at > 10(3) cfu/ml in the initial examination, but another 42 samples contained L. monocytogenes following an enrichment process. L. monocytogenes was isolated most frequently from raw chicken samples (18%), but was not isolated from sausage samples. Forty-three isolates were defined as serotypes by using Bacto-Listeria-O-antisera Type 1 (Difco 2300-50-2) and Type 4 (Difco 2301-50-1) except that Type poly was not used. For these reasons, all isolates were classified as type 1 or type 4 and the other was termed untypeable. Twenty-one samples were type 1, 17 were untypeable, and 5 were both serotype 4 and untypeable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15563103What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.