Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38085721›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Suppression of pathogens in properly refrigerated raw milk.

M E Coleman, T P Oscar, T L Negley, M M Stephenson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M E ColemanColeman Scientific Consulting, Groton, NY, United States of America.
T P OscarUSDA, Agricultural Research Service, Princess Ann, MD, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6253-1286
T L NegleyTIG Environmental, Syracuse, NY, United States of America.
M M StephensonAdvancement and External Affairs, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States of America.
Agricultural Research Service · USSyracuse University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conflicting claims exist regarding pathogen growth in raw milk. A small pilot study was designed to provide definitive data on trends for pathogen growth and decline in raw bovine milk hygienically produced for direct human consumption. An independent laboratory conducted the study, monitoring growth and decline of pathogens inoculated into raw milk. Raw milk samples were inoculated with foodborne pathogens (Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, or Salmonella) at lower (<162 colony forming units (CFU) per mL) and higher levels (<8,300 CFU/mL). Samples were stored at 4.4°C and quantified over time after inoculation (days 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 14) by standard culture-based methods. Statistical analysis of trends using the Mann-Kendall Trend Test and Analysis of Variance were conducted for 48 time series observations. Evidence of pathogen growth was documented for L. monocytogenes in 8 of 12 replicates (P = 0.001 to P = 0.028). Analysis of variance confirmed significant increases for L. monocytogenes at both initial levels in week 2. No evidence of growth was documented over 14 days for the three pathogens predominantly associated with raw milk outbreaks in the US (Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, and Salmonella). Further research is needed to characterize parameters for pathogen growth and decline to support re-assessment of risks that were based on incorrect assumptions about interactions of pathogens with the raw milk microbiota.

Indexed as

Escherichia coli O157Listeria monocytogenesAnimalsColony Count, MicrobialFood MicrobiologyHumansMilkPilot ProjectsSalmonella

Identifiers

PMID38085721
PMCPMC10715650
OpenAlexW4389611953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.