Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31066584›Full record

ArticleFoodborne pathogens and disease2019

An Overview of PulseNet USA Databases.

Beth Tolar, Lavin A Joseph, Morgan N Schroeder, Steven Stroika, Efrain M Ribot, Kelley B Hise, Peter Gerner-Smidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foodborne pathogens and disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Microbiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance ofInfectious diseases (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Beth TolarEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Lavin A JosephEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Morgan N SchroederEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Steven StroikaEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Efrain M RibotEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Kelley B HiseEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Peter Gerner-SmidtEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PulseNet USA is the molecular surveillance network for foodborne disease in the United States. The network consists of state and local public health laboratories, as well as food regulatory agencies, that follow PulseNet's standardized protocols to perform pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) and analyze the results using standardized software. The raw sequences are uploaded to the GenomeTrakr or PulseNet bioprojects at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The PFGE patterns and analyzed sequence data are uploaded in real time with associated demographic data to the PulseNet national databases managed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The PulseNet databases are organism specific and provide a central storage location for molecular and demographic data related to an isolate. Sequences are compared in the databases, thereby facilitating the rapid detection of clusters of foodborne diseases that may represent widespread outbreaks. WGS genotyping data, for example, antibiotic resistance and virulence profiles, are also uploaded in real time to the PulseNet databases to improve food safety surveillance activities.

Indexed as

Databases as TopicLaboratoriesPublic HealthDatabases, FactualDisease OutbreaksElectrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-FieldFoodborne DiseasesHumansPublic Health SurveillanceUnited StatesWhole Genome Sequencingdata analysisfoodborne outbreak detectionPulseNetwhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID31066584
PMCPMC6653802

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.