ReviewVeterinary sciences2017
Inquiring into the Gaps of Campylobacter Surveillance Methods.
Review in Veterinary sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genome Analysis of the Multidrug-ResistantMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Campylobacter spp. in chicken meat from traditional markets in Peru and its impact measured through a quantitative microbiological risk assessment.Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Genomic diversity and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter spp. from humans and livestock in Nigeria.Journal of biomedical science · 2022Article
- Investigation of MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry for Assessing the Molecular Diversity ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Distribution ofGenes · 2021Article
- Campylobacteriosis Agents in Meat Carcasses Collected from Two District Municipalities in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Review
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
Campylobacter is one of the most common pathogen-related causes of diarrheal illnesses globally and has been recognized as a significant factor of human disease for more than three decades. Molecular typing techniques and their combinations have allowed for species identification among members of the Campylobacter genus with good resolution, but the same tools usually fail to proceed to subtyping of closely related species due to high sequence similarity. This problem is exacerbated by the demanding conditions for isolation and detection from the human, animal or water samples as well as due to the difficulties during laboratory maintenance and long-term storage of the isolates. In an effort to define the ideal typing tool, we underline the strengths and limitations of the typing methodologies currently used to map the broad epidemiologic profile of campylobacteriosis in public health and outbreak investigations. The application of both the old and the new molecular typing tools is discussed and an indirect comparison is presented among the preferred techniques used in current research methodology.
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.