Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26787931›Full record

ReviewJournal of food science and technology2016

Advantages and limitations of potential methods for the analysis of bacteria in milk: a review.

Frederick Tawi Tabit

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of food science and technology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Anisakid nematode species identification in harbour porpoises (International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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.

Frederick Tawi TabitDepartment of Life and Consumer Sciences, University of South Africa, Cnr Chritiaan de Wet and Pioneer Avenue, Florida, Johannesburg 1710 South Africa ; Department of Life and Consumer Sciences, University of South Africa, Private Bag X6, 1710 Florida, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contamination concerns in the dairy industry are motivated by outbreaks of disease in humans and the inability of thermal processes to eliminate bacteria completely in processed products. HACCP principles are an important tool used in the food industry to identify and control potential food safety hazards in order to meet customer demands and regulatory requirements. Milk testing is of importance to the milk industry regarding quality assurance and monitoring of processed products by researchers, manufacturers and regulatory agencies. Due to the availability of numerous methods used for analysing the microbial quality of milk in literature and differences in priorities of stakeholders, it is sometimes confusing to choose an appropriate method for a particular analysis. The objective of this paper is to review the advantages and disadvantages of selected techniques that can be used in the analysis of bacteria in milk. SSC, HRMA, REP, and RAPD are the top four techniques which are quick and cost-effective and possess adequate discriminatory power for the detection and profiling of bacteria. The following conclusions were arrived at during this review: HRMA, REP and RFLP are the techniques with the most reproducible results, and the techniques with the most discriminatory power are AFLP, PFGE and Raman Spectroscopy.

Indexed as

AnalysisBacteriaIdentificationMilkPCRQuantification

Identifiers

PMID26787931
PMCPMC4711429

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.