ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2016
Evaluation of molecular typing of foodborne pathogens in European reference laboratories from 2012 to 2013.
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- One Health surveillance-A cross-sectoral detection, characterization, and notification of foodborne pathogens.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Combining Standard Molecular Typing and Whole Genome Sequencing to InvestigateFrontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Interlaboratory Evaluation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Escherichia coli Identification Microarray for Profiling Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli.Journal of food protection · 2018Article
- External quality assessment for molecular typing of Salmonella 2013-2015: performance of the European national public health reference laboratories.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
- Phenotypic and Genotypic Eligible Methods forFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2012, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) initiated external quality assessment (EQA) schemes for molecular typing including the National Public Health Reference Laboratories in Europe. The overall aim for these EQA schemes was to enhance the European surveillance of food-borne pathogens by evaluating and improving the quality and comparability of molecular typing. The EQAs were organised by Statens Serum Institut (SSI) and included Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica, verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) and Listeria monocytogenes. Inter-laboratory comparable pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) images were obtained from 10 of 17 of the participating laboratories for Listeria, 15 of 25 for Salmonella, but only nine of 20 for VTEC. Most problems were related to PFGE running conditions and/or incorrect use of image acquisition. Analysis of the gels was done in good accordance with the provided guidelines. Furthermore, we assessed the multilocus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) scheme for S. Typhimurium. Of 15 laboratories, nine submitted correct results for all analysed strains, and four had difficulties with one strain only. In conclusion, both PFGE and MLVA are prone to variation in quality, and there is therefore a continuous need for standardisation and validation of laboratory performance for molecular typing methods of food-borne pathogens in the human public health sector.
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.