ArticleBMC microbiology2014
Occurrence of Clostridium difficile in seasoned hamburgers and seven processing plants in Iran.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Global prevalence of Clostridioides difficile in 17,148 food samples from 2009 to 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Global and Historical Distribution ofFrontiers in medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Clostridioides difficile as a Zoonotic and Foodborne Pathogen: Reviewing the Global Evidence and South African Data.MicrobiologyOpen · 2026Review
- Community-AcquiredInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The Role ofMicroorganisms · 2025Review
- Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance of Clostridioides (Iranian journal of public health · 2023Review
- Raw Animal Meats as Potential Sources ofFood science of animal resources · 2021Article
- Investigation of the Effectiveness of Disinfectants Used in Meat-Processing Facilities to ControlFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Detection, Characterization and Antibiotic Susceptibility ofFood science of animal resources · 2020Article
- Review
- Prevalence ofKorean journal for food science of animal resources · 2018Article
- Clostridium difficile in Food and Animals: A Comprehensive Review.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe recent increment of the incidence of Community Associated Clostridium difficile Infection (CA)-CDI has led to speculation that this disease is associated to foodborne transmission. Therefore it is critical to establish the community sources of CDI in order to implement the appropriate interventions. The present study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of C. difficile in seasoned hamburger and examine the sources of C. difficile dispersal in hamburger processing plants. A total of 211 samples including hamburger ingredients, the final product, processing equipment and food contact surfaces were collected from seven hamburger processing plants to evaluate the routes of dispersal of C. difficile. The samples were assessed for the occurrence of C. difficile using culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods. All isolates were screened for the existence of toxin A, B and binary toxin genes. In addition, isolates were subjected to PCR ribotyping.
resultsOverall, 9/211 (4.2%) samples were positive. Toxigenic C. difficile were detected from 2/7 (28.5%) hamburger processing plants, in (3/54) 5.6% of beef meat samples, (2/56) 3.5% of swabs taken from the environment and (4/56) 7.1% of hamburger samples after both molding and freezing. C. difficile was not found in 45 non-meat ingredients including 14 defrosted onions, 14 textured soy proteins and 17 seasonings. All isolates contained tcdB gene while 7 strains were positive for tcdA and two remaining strains were negative for tcdA. None of the isolates harbored binary toxin gene (cdtB). PCR ribotyping of 9 isolates categorized into four ribotypes (IR21, IR 22, IR 23 and IR24). Ribotype IR 22 was the most common type 6/9 (66.6%) found. This genotype was isolated from raw meat, environmental samples and hamburger after both forming and freezing in one processing plant, suggesting raw beef meat as a possible major source of contamination.
conclusionsHyper-virulent strains of ribotype were not found in this study however, occurrence of other toxicgenic strains indicate the public health significance of contamination of this product.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.