Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24838905›Full record

ArticleParasitology research2014

Assessing laboratory performance in Trichinella ring trials.

David Petroff, Dirk Hasenclever, Gregor Makrutzki, Katharina Riehn, Ernst Lücker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Parasitology research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Validation Parameters of the Magnetic Stirrer Method for Pooled Sample Digestion forInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David PetroffClinical Trial Centre, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, David.Petroff@zks.uni-leipzig.de.
Dirk Hasenclever
Gregor Makrutzki
Katharina Riehn
Ernst Lücker
Leipzig University · DEHAW Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Trichinosis (Trichinellosis) is a zoonotic disease acquired by eating raw or not adequately processed pork or wild game infected with the larvae of the roundworm genus Trichinella. According to European regulations, animals susceptible to Trichinella have to be examined for infestation. To evaluate the performance of laboratories in Germany, inter-laboratory comparisons known as "ring trials" were introduced by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in 2004. The current method of analysis makes use of tolerance zones based on the number of larvae in the sample, but does not permit one to determine if a given lab can detect an infested sample reliably, as required by the quality assurance recommendations of the International Commission on Trichinellosis (ICT). A new way of analysing the ring trial data is presented here, which is based on Bayesian hierarchical models. The model implements the ICT requirement by providing an estimate for the probability that a given lab would fail to detect a sample containing, say, five larvae. When applied to the 87 labs that participated in Germany's 2009 ring trials, it turns out this probability is greater than 10% for 21 of them, although only 10 of these in fact returned a false negative result. Such a new method is required to abide by the ICT requirements and make ring trials effective.

Indexed as

AnimalsBayes TheoremConsumer Product SafetyFood ContaminationFood InspectionFood ParasitologyGermanyGuidelines as TopicLaboratoriesLarvaMeatModels, StatisticalQuality ControlSwineTrichinella

Identifiers

PMID24838905
OpenAlexW2029595451

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.