ArticleItalian journal of food safety2026
Process hygiene criteria for
Article in Italian journal of food safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compares Salmonella monitoring data obtained from food business operator (FBO) self-monitoring and competent authority (CA) official sampling on pig carcasses in a high-throughput Italian slaughterhouse over 10 years (2012-2021 for FBO; 2014-2021 for CA). A total of 1560 FBO and 377 CA samples were analyzed. Salmonella prevalence was 3.46% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-4.5] for FBO and 10.34% (95% CI: 7.3-13.5) for CA, with statistically significant yearly differences in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2020 (p<0.05). Derby was the predominant serovar (22.6%); however, 20.4% of the FBO isolates were classified only as "No Typhimurium and Enteritidis", highlighting gaps in serotyping protocols. Discrepancies likely reflect differences in sampling frequencies, carcass origins, and the use of different accredited laboratories by FBO and CA (private and official ones, respectively). The study identifies regulatory ambiguities, including a mistranslation in the Italian Ministerial Note, and recommends enhanced farm-level controls and harmonized surveillance.
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.