Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30157961›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2018

Food-borne bacterial pathogens in marketed raw meat of Dharan, eastern Nepal.

Kamana Bantawa, Kalyan Rai, Dhiren Subba Limbu, Hemanta Khanal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Prevalence and characterization ofOpen veterinary journal · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Methicillin-resistantVeterinary world · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Effect ofHeliyon · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Kamana BantawaDepartment of Microbiology, Central Campus of Technology, Tribhuvan University, Dharan, Nepal. kamnarai5@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9603-5504
Kalyan RaiDepartment of Microbiology, Central Campus of Technology, Tribhuvan University, Dharan, Nepal.
Dhiren Subba LimbuDepartment of Microbiology, Birendra Memorial College, Tribhuvan University, Dharan, Nepal.
Hemanta KhanalDepartment of Microbiology, Central Campus of Technology, Tribhuvan University, Dharan, Nepal.

Funding

University Grants Commission- Nepal 20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aims to assess the bacteriological quality of marketed raw meat with a special emphasis on isolation of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in raw meat marketed in Dharan. Altogether 50 meat samples were collected from local markets of Dharan and transported to the microbiology laboratory at 4 °C. The meat samples were homogenized in a sterile glass homogenizer and the possible pathogens were isolated and identified by conventional microbiological techniques.

resultsThe mean total viable count values were found having a mean count of 8.22 ± 0.14, 8.29 ± 0.17, 7.87 ± 0.18 and 7.92 ± 0.19 in terms of log

Indexed as

Food ContaminationAnimalsColony Count, MicrobialEscherichia coliFood MicrobiologyMeatNepalStaphylococcus aureusColiformsDharanMeatTotal viable count

Identifiers

PMID30157961
PMCPMC6114039

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.