ReviewJournal of food science and technology2022
Present and pioneer methods of early detection of food borne pathogens.
Review in Journal of food science and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of GbAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Molecular methods for rapid detection and identification of foodborne pathogenic bacteria.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Review
- Leveraging innovative diagnostics as a tool to contain superbugs.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2025Review
- Combating foodborne pathogens: Efficacy of plasma-activated water with supplementary methods forFood chemistry: X · 2024Article
- Molecular surveillance and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of bacterial contamination in pastries of Iranian confectioneries: a public health concern.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Maltose-Derivatized Fluorescence Turn-On Imaging Probe for Bacteria Detection.ACS infectious diseases · 2023Article
- An Overview of the Public Health Challenges in Diagnosing and Controlling Human Foodborne Pathogens.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Research progress on detection techniques for point-of-care testing of foodborne pathogens.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food-borne pathogens are a severe threat to human illness and death world-wide. Researchers have reported more than 250 food-borne diseases. Most of these are infections caused by a wide variety of bacteria, viruses, and parasites. It has a significant economic impact also. Detection of pathogenic microbes is thus essential for food safety. Such identification techniques could meet the following parameters viz., the accuracy of detection techniques that are quick, efficient, economical, highly sensitive, specific, and non-labor intensive. The various available methods for detecting food pathogens are classified into different groups, each having its advantages and disadvantages. The conventional methods are usually the first choice of detection even though they are laborious. Modern techniques such as biosensors, immunological assays, and macromolecule-based (nucleic acid) methods are being developed and refined to overcome traditional methods' limitations. Early detection of pathogens and secure food safety at each stage of food processing to storage, utilizing improved methodologies are mandatory. This review summarizes the deadly food pathogens leading to significant outbreaks and discusses the importance of early detection methods and advanced detection methods in comparison.
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.