Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29425222›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

The safety and quality of pork and poultry meat imports for the common European market received at border inspection post Hamburg Harbour between 2014 and 2015.

Wiebke Jansen, Svenja Woudstra, Anja Müller, Nils Grabowski, Gundela Schoo, Bettina Gerulat, Günter Klein, Corinna Kehrenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Microbial Quality, Risk Analysis, and Molecular Detection ofInternational journal of food science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Prevalence ofVeterinary world · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Occurrence of Multi-Drug ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Characterization ofGut pathogens · 2018
    Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Wiebke JansenInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety and Research Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses (RIZ), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Svenja WoudstraInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety and Research Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses (RIZ), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Anja MüllerInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety and Research Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses (RIZ), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Nils GrabowskiInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety and Research Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses (RIZ), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Gundela SchooBorder Inspection Post Hamburg Harbour, Civil Authority for Health and Consumer Protection, Hamburg, Germany.
Bettina GerulatBorder Inspection Post Hamburg Harbour, Civil Authority for Health and Consumer Protection, Hamburg, Germany.
Günter KleinInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety and Research Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses (RIZ), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Corinna KehrenbergInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety and Research Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses (RIZ), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8556-4080

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Though imports of products of animal origin into the European Union (EU) have to comply with legal requirements and quality standards of the community, food consignment rejections at external EU borders have been increasing in recent years. This study explored microbiological metrics according to national target and critical values valid for samples at consumer level of 498 fresh poultry meat and 136 fresh pork filets from consignments subjected to physical checks during clearing at the border inspection post Hamburg harbour between January 2014 and December 2015 with ISO standard methods. Quantitative results indicated that critical thresholds for aerobic counts, Enterobacteriaceae, and E. coli were never surpassed. Merely for staphylococci, one poultry sample (0.2%) and 10 pork samples (9.3%) exceeded the critical limit (3.7 log cfu/g). However, qualitative analyses revealed that, Staphylococcus aureus was present in 16% and 10% of all poultry and pork samples, respectively, though no methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus could be confirmed. Moreover, E. coli was present in 50% and 67% of all pork and poultry samples, respectively, and thereof 33 isolates were confirmed as extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing E. coli. Only 1.2% of the poultry samples were unacceptable due to the presence of Salmonella spp., whereas they were not detected in any pork sample. Campylobacter spp. were not detected in any sample. Though imported pork and poultry meat complies mostly with national market requirements, it might pose a potential risk to public health, especially for a direct or indirect foodborne transmission of imported, uncommon strains of zoonotic bacteria.

Indexed as

SafetyEuropean UnionFood MicrobiologyMeat ProductsPoultry Products

Identifiers

PMID29425222
PMCPMC5806876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.