ArticleScientific reports2022
Sensitivity of candling as routine method for the detection and recovery of ascaridoids in commercial fish fillets.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance assessment of ISO 23036-1:2021 for parasite detection in the seafood industry.Food and waterborne parasitology · 2026Article
- Hyperspectral imaging and deep learning for parasite detection in white fish under industrial conditions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sequence Segmentation of Nematodes in Atlantic Cod with Multispectral Imaging Data.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Re-evaluation of certain aspects of the EFSA Scientific Opinion of April 2010 on risk assessment of parasites in fishery products, based on new scientific data. Part 1: ToRs1-3.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Foodborne Parasites and Their Complex Life Cycles Challenging Food Safety in Different Food Chains.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ascaridoids are one of the main parasitic hazards in commercial fish. Candling is the current industrial screening method whereby visible ascaridoid larvae are detected on a light table and manually removed. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity (Se) and negative predictive value (NPV) of this method. To make targeted recommendations to the fish industry, the Se was calculated per fish part, larval genus, and fish species. All fish parts (n = 615) were first candled, and larvae were collected, followed by enzymatic digestion to recover the remaining larvae. A fish part was considered positive if at least one larva was detected using candling and/or enzymatic digestion, with both methods combined as reference standard. The overall Se of candling was 31% (95% CI 23-41%) and NPV was 87% (95% CI 85-90%). The Se increased with higher numbers of larvae/100 g infected muscle. A low NPV was found for the belly flaps, therefore we either advise the removal or proper freezing of this part. Lastly, the Se and larval recovery was the highest for the darker and larger Pseudoterranova spp. larvae. Due to the low overall efficacy of candling, further assessment of its cost-benefit and impact on consumers' health risk should be conducted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.