Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626378›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019

Analysis of the European baseline survey of norovirus in oysters.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

1 author.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Commission requested scientific technical assistance for the analysis of a European Union coordinated monitoring programme on the prevalence of norovirus in raw oysters. A total of 2,180 valid samples were taken from production areas and 2,129 from dispatch centres, taken over two consecutive years, ensuring the precision and the confidence desired in the estimation. The prevalence at production areas was estimated to be 34.5% (CI: 30.1-39.1%), while for batches from dispatch centres it was 10.8% (CI: 8.2-14.4%). The analyses show a strong seasonal effect, with higher contamination in the period November to April, as well as lower contamination for Class A areas than other classes. These associations were observed in both production areas and batches from dispatch centres. The results for both genogroups were above the respective limit of quantification (LOQ) in less than 10% of the samples taken. The simple substitution of not-detected and positive samples below the LOQ, by half of the limit of detection and half of the LOQ, respectively, produced estimates of the proportion of samples above or equal to 300 copies per gram (cpg) comparable to the statistical model. The current bacteriological microbiological criteria applicable to live bivalve molluscs might be complemented by a norovirus criterion. The analyses of the substitution approach show that selection of a potential limit within a microbiological criterion close to or lower than the LOQ (for example, less than 300 cpg, given the current test used in this survey) would be difficult to apply. This survey only assessed thresholds from the perspective of the analytical capability and not that of human health risk.

Indexed as

baseline surveyBayesian modelgeneralised estimating equationnorovirusoysters

Identifiers

PMID32626378
PMCPMC7009027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.