ArticleItalian journal of food safety2026
Microbiological quality and regulatory compliance of ground game meat produced in central Italy under Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The establishment of structured supply chains for hunted game meat has fostered the development of a wide range of products intended for the food service sector. Among these, minced meat has gained particular prominence due to its practicality. Nonetheless, the grinding process can enhance microbial proliferation, posing potential challenges to product quality and safety. The hygienic profile of deep-frozen minced wild boar (Sus scrofa) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) meat remains insufficiently characterized. A total of 70 minced meat samples (corresponding to 10 batches from wild boar and 4 from roe deer) were collected over a 1-year period from a dedicated processing facility. The samples were processed and subjected to aerobic colony counts (ACC), β-glucuronidase-positive Escherichia coli counts, and the detection of Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes. The mean ACC was 4.64±0.75 Log CFU/g, with no significant differences between wild boar (4.65 Log CFU/g) and roe deer (4.61 Log CFU/g) samples. Differences were observed for E. coli counts, with mean values of 2.60±1.02 Log CFU/g for wild boar and 1.90±0.81 Log CFU/g for roe deer. Neither Salmonella spp. nor L. monocytogenes was detected in any of the samples. When compared against the process hygiene criteria established by European legislation, 95.71% of the samples were classified as satisfactory and 4.29% as acceptable for ACC. However, with respect to E. coli, 35.71% of the samples exceeded 500 CFU/g, a level regarded as unsatisfactory for minced meat set in Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005.
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.