ArticleBMC microbiology2022
The MBS microbial rapid detection system for rapid detection of major pathogenic bacteria in feed: comparison with plate counting method.
Article in BMC microbiology, 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.
- Phosphorylation-asymmetric recombinase polymerase amplification enables target-directed circularization for ultrasensitive multiplex electrochemical detection of respiratory pathogens.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Article
- Recognition Element-Based Strategies for Rapid Detection of Foodborne Pathogens: Recent Progress and Perspectives.Biosensors · 2025Review
- A Highly Sensitive Silicon-Core Quantum Dot Fluorescent Probe for Vomitoxin Detection in Cereals.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Enhanced Long-Term Antibacterial and Osteogenic Properties of Silver-Loaded Titanium Dioxide Nanotube Arrays for Implant Applications.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Article
- Application of the Electrical Microbial Growth Analyzer Method for Efficiently Quantifying Viable Bacteria in Ready-to-Eat Sea Cucumber Products.Microorganisms · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current methods for detecting pathogenic bacteria in feed require high technique and take a long time. The Micro Biological Survey (MBS) rapid detection system is a simple, economical and rapid microbial detection method. The purpose of this experiment was to compare the detection of Escherichia coli (E. coli), Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), Listeria monocytogenes (LM), coliform (COLI) and total viable count (TVC) in feed by the MBS rapid microbial detection system and plate counting method (PCM). The results showed that the limit of quantitation, recovery rate and coefficient of variation of the MBS microbial rapid detection system are better than the plate counting method. When detecting the pathogenic bacteria content in artificially contaminated feed, the MBS rapid microbial detection system was positively correlated with the PCM. When the MBS microbial rapid detection system and PCM were used to detect the collected real feed samples, there was no significant difference in the detection results of the two methods in most of the feed samples. In summary, the MBS microbial rapid detection system is the most convenient and rapid detection method and is suitable for promotion and application in production lines.
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.