Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31294222›Full record

ReviewAIMS microbiology2018

Microbial pollution and food safety.

Thomas Bintsis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AIMS microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bacteriocin production byRSC advances · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Coupling CuNature communications · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Antibacterial Effects of Theaflavins againstFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cluster analysis and geospatial mapping of antibiotic resistantOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Thomas BintsisDepartment of Agricultural Technology, TEI of West Macedonia, Florina, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial pollution is a serious food safety issue because it can lead to a wide range of foodborne diseases. A great number of foodborne diseases and outbreaks are reported in which contamination of fresh produce and animal products occurs from polluted sources with pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoa and such outbreaks are reviewed and the sources are revealed. Investigations of foodborne outbreaks involved meat production and fresh produce, namely, that occurred at the early stages of the food chain have shown certain sources of contamination. Domesticated food animals, as well as wild animals, flies and rodents can serve as a source of contamination of nearby produce-growing fields and can lead to human infection through direct contact at farms and, mostly, mail order hatcheries. The most of the fresh produce associated outbreaks have followed wildlife intrusion into growing fields or fecal contamination from nearly animal production facilities that likely led to produce contamination, polluted water used for irrigation and improper manure. Preventive measures, as part of implemented good agricultural practice systems are described. Controlling and minimizing pre-harvest contamination may be one of the key aspects of food safety.

Indexed as

environmental contaminationfoodborne pathogen outbreaksfood safetyfresh producemeat productionmicrobial pollution

Identifiers

PMID31294222
PMCPMC6604938

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.