Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31798549›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2019

Critical Orientation in the Jungle of Currently Available Methods and Types of Data for Source Attribution of Foodborne Diseases.

Lapo Mughini-Gras, Pauline Kooh, Philippe Fravalo, Jean-Christophe Augustin, Laurent Guillier, Julie David, Anne Thébault, Frederic Carlin, Alexandre Leclercq, Nathalie Jourdan-Da-Silva and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Microorganisms · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Using SNP addresses forEpidemiology and infection · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Polyphyly in widespreadFrontiers in public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Source Attribution Study of SporadicFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    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

14 authors.

Lapo Mughini-GrasCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Pauline KoohDepartment of Risk Assessment, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Philippe FravaloResearch Chair in Meat-Safety, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada.
Jean-Christophe AugustinEcole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Laurent GuillierLaboratory for Food Safety, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Julie DavidPloufragan-Plouzané Laboratory, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Ploufragan, France.
Anne ThébaultDepartment of Risk Assessment, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Frederic CarlinUMR 408 SQPOV "Sécurité et Qualité des Produits d'Origine Végétale" INRA, Avignon Université, Avignon, France.
Alexandre LeclercqInstitut Pasteur, Biology of Infection Unit, National Reference Centre and WHO Collaborating Centre for Listeria, Paris, France.
Nathalie Jourdan-Da-SilvaSanté Publique France (French National Public Health Agency), Saint-Maurice, France.
Nicole PavioLaboratory for Animal Health, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Isabelle VillenaLaboratory of Parasitology-Mycology, EA ESCAPE, University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France.
Moez SanaaDepartment of Risk Assessment, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Laurence WatierDepartment of Biostatistics, Biomathematics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Infectious Diseases (B2PHI), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), UVSQ, Institut Pasteur, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With increased interest in source attribution of foodborne pathogens, there is a need to sort and assess the applicability of currently available methods. Herewith we reviewed the most frequently applied methods for source attribution of foodborne diseases, discussing their main strengths and weaknesses to be considered when choosing the most appropriate methods based on the type, quality, and quantity of data available, the research questions to be addressed, and the (epidemiological and microbiological) characteristics of the pathogens in question. A variety of source attribution approaches have been applied in recent years. These methods can be defined as top-down, bottom-up, or combined. Top-down approaches assign the human cases back to their sources of infection based on epidemiological (e.g., outbreak data analysis, case-control/cohort studies, etc.), microbiological (i.e., microbial subtyping), or combined (e.g., the so-called 'source-assigned case-control study' design) methods. Methods based on microbial subtyping are further differentiable according to the modeling framework adopted as frequency-matching (e.g., the Dutch and Danish models) or population genetics (e.g., Asymmetric Island Models and STRUCTURE) models, relying on the modeling of either phenotyping or genotyping data of pathogen strains from human cases and putative sources. Conversely, bottom-up approaches like comparative exposure assessment start from the level of contamination (prevalence and concentration) of a given pathogen in each source, and then go upwards in the transmission chain incorporating factors related to human exposure to these sources and dose-response relationships. Other approaches are intervention studies, including 'natural experiments,' and expert elicitations. A number of methodological challenges concerning all these approaches are discussed. In absence of an universally agreed upon 'gold' standard, i.e., a single method that satisfies all situations and needs for all pathogens, combining different approaches or applying them in a comparative fashion seems to be a promising way forward.

Indexed as

epidemiological studiesexpert knowledge elicitationfoodborne pathogenfrequency-matching modelspopulation genetics modelsquantitative risk assessmentsource attributiontyping methods

Identifiers

PMID31798549
PMCPMC6861836

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.