Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34204284›Full record

ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2021

ASSURED Point-of-Need Food Safety Screening: A Critical Assessment of Portable Food Analyzers.

Safiye Jafari, Julian Guercetti, Ariadni Geballa-Koukoula, Aristeidis S Tsagkaris, Joost L D Nelis, M-Pilar Marco, J-Pablo Salvador, Arjen Gerssen, Jana Hajslova, Chris Elliott and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. An analysis of the nutritional effects ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Novel Analytical Methods in Food Analysis.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

16 authors.

Safiye JafariDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Schmelzbergstrasse 9, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6040-200X
Julian GuercettiNanobiotechnology for Diagnostics (Nb4D), Institute for Advanced Chemistry of Catalonia (IQAC) of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.
Ariadni Geballa-KoukoulaWageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 230, 6700 AE Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1327-6690
Aristeidis S TsagkarisDepartment of Food Analysis and Nutrition, Faculty of Food and Biochemical Technology, University of Chemistry and Technology Prague, Technická 5, Dejvice, 166 28 Prague 6, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4450-2611
Joost L D NelisInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6675-2606
M-Pilar MarcoNanobiotechnology for Diagnostics (Nb4D), Institute for Advanced Chemistry of Catalonia (IQAC) of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4064-1668
J-Pablo SalvadorNanobiotechnology for Diagnostics (Nb4D), Institute for Advanced Chemistry of Catalonia (IQAC) of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3608-0634
Arjen GerssenWageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 230, 6700 AE Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4271-1516
Jana HajslovaDepartment of Food Analysis and Nutrition, Faculty of Food and Biochemical Technology, University of Chemistry and Technology Prague, Technická 5, Dejvice, 166 28 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
Chris ElliottInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0495-2909
Katrina CampbellInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5994-2524
Davide MigliorelliCSEM SA, Center Landquart, Bahnhofstrasse 1, 7302 Landquart, Switzerland.
Loïc BurrCSEM SA, Center Landquart, Bahnhofstrasse 1, 7302 Landquart, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6068-709X
Silvia GenerelliCSEM SA, Center Landquart, Bahnhofstrasse 1, 7302 Landquart, Switzerland.
Michel W F NielenWageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 230, 6700 AE Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4634-0249
Shana J SturlaDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Schmelzbergstrasse 9, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6808-5950

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard methods for chemical food safety testing in official laboratories rely largely on liquid or gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. Although these methods are considered the gold standard for quantitative confirmatory analysis, they require sampling, transferring the samples to a central laboratory to be tested by highly trained personnel, and the use of expensive equipment. Therefore, there is an increasing demand for portable and handheld devices to provide rapid, efficient, and on-site screening of food contaminants. Recent technological advancements in the field include smartphone-based, microfluidic chip-based, and paper-based devices integrated with electrochemical and optical biosensing platforms. Furthermore, the potential application of portable mass spectrometers in food testing might bring the confirmatory analysis from the laboratory to the field in the future. Although such systems open new promising possibilities for portable food testing, few of these devices are commercially available. To understand why barriers remain, portable food analyzers reported in the literature over the last ten years were reviewed. To this end, the analytical performance of these devices and the extent they match the World Health Organization benchmark for diagnostic tests, i.e., the Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-friendly, Rapid and Robust, Equipment-free, and Deliverable to end-users (ASSURED) criteria, was evaluated critically. A five-star scoring system was used to assess their potential to be implemented as food safety testing systems. The main findings highlight the need for concentrated efforts towards combining the best features of different technologies, to bridge technological gaps and meet commercialization requirements.

Indexed as

ASSURED criteriaelectrochemical biosensorfood safetylab-on-a-chipmicrofluidic deviceoptical biosensorpoint-of-needportable food analyzerportable mass spectrometersmartphone-based biosensor

Identifiers

PMID34204284
PMCPMC8235511

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.