Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33275089›Full record

ArticleMicrobial genomics2021

Translatability of WGS typing results can simplify data exchange for surveillance and control of

Stefanie Lüth, Carlus Deneke, Sylvia Kleta, Sascha Al Dahouk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Molecular Characterization ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Listeriosis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. EmergingFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Food science & nutrition · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Molecular Typing of UkrainianMicroorganisms · 2022
    Article
  14. Sequence-based detection and typing procedures forFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    Review
  15. What WGS Reveals aboutMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  16. Comparative genomics ofMicrobial genomics · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Genomic Diversity ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    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.

Stefanie LüthNational Reference Laboratory for Listeria monocytogenes, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Department of Biological Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Carlus DenekeStudy Centre for Genome Sequencing and Analysis, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Department of Biological Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Sylvia KletaNational Reference Laboratory for Listeria monocytogenes, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Department of Biological Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Sascha Al DahoukNational Reference Laboratory for Listeria monocytogenes, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Department of Biological Safety, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Where classical epidemiology has proven to be inadequate for surveillance and control of foodborne pathogens, molecular epidemiology, using genomic typing methods, can add value. However, the analysis of whole genome sequencing (WGS) data varies widely and is not yet fully harmonised. We used genomic data on 494

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticDisease OutbreaksFood MicrobiologyFood-Processing IndustryHumansListeria monocytogenesListeriosisMultilocus Sequence TypingPhylogenyPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePopulation SurveillanceWhole Genome Sequencingcore genome MLSTgenomic epidemiologyoutbreaksingle nucleotide polymorphismstandardisationwhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID33275089
PMCPMC8115905

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.