Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39431185›Full record

ReviewJournal of food science and technology2024

Microfluidics for detection of food pathogens: recent trends and opportunities.

Lakshmi Jyothish, Sameera Kazi, Jyoti S Gokhale

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of food science and technology, 2024. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Lakshmi JyothishFood Engineering and Technology Department, Institute of Chemical Technology, Matunga, Mumbai, 400019 India.
Sameera KaziFood Engineering and Technology Department, Institute of Chemical Technology, Matunga, Mumbai, 400019 India.
Jyoti S GokhaleFood Engineering and Technology Department, Institute of Chemical Technology, Matunga, Mumbai, 400019 India.ORCID 0000-0003-0384-8253

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Safe and healthy food is the fundamental right of every citizen. Problems caused by foodborne pathogens have always raised a threat to food safety and human health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that around 48 million people are affected by food intoxication, and 3000 people succumb to death. Hence, it is inevitable that an approach that is efficient, reliable, sensitive, and rapid approach that can replace the conventional analytical methods such as microbiological and biochemical methods, high throughput next-generation sequence (NGS), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), etc. Even though the accuracy of conventional methods is high, it is tedious; increased consumption of reagents/samples, false positives, and complex operations are the drawbacks of these methods. Microfluidic devices have shown remarkable advances in all branches of science. They serve as an alternative to conventional ways to overcome the abovementioned drawbacks. Furthermore, coupling microfluidics can improve the efficiency and accuracy of conventional methods such as surface plasma resonance, loop-mediated isothermal amplification, ELISA, and PCR. This article reviewed the progress of microfluidic devices in the last ten years in detecting foodborne pathogens. Microfluidic technology has opened the research gateway for developing low-cost, on-site, portable, and rapid assay devices. The article includes the application of microfluidic-based devices to identify critical food pathogens and briefly discusses the necessary research in this area.

Indexed as

Foodborne pathogensFood safetyImmunoassaysMicrofluidic deviceMolecular diagnostic techniques

Identifiers

PMID39431185
PMCPMC11486885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.