Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42112172›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2012

Scientific Opinion on Public health risks represented by certain composite products containing food of animal origin.

EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Guidance on date marking and related food information: part 1 (date marking).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Opinion reviews the factors that affect microbial survival and growth in composite products, and in foods in general. It concludes that the main factors to be considered are: water activity, pH, temperature and duration of storage, processing, and intensity and duration of other non-thermal physical processes applied. Prevalence and concentration of the pathogens in food are important to determine the risk for consumers. The opinion presents a review of the quantitative microbiology models and databases that can be used to provide quantitative estimations of the impact of the above factors on the survival and growth of the main bacterial pathogens. In composite products, migration and diffusion of moisture and substances among the ingredients may change their physico-chemical parameters, particularly at the interfaces. Therefore, the assessment of the risk posed by composite products needs to consider the combinations of parameters most permissive to survival and growth of pathogens. Two complementary approaches are proposed for the identification and profiling of microbiological hazards in different specific composite products. The first one is based on past outbreaks and prevalence of hazards in the products and leads to the conclusion that the most frequent hazard-composite product combinations are

Indexed as

Composite productfood‐borne pathogens

Identifiers

PMID42112172
PMCPMC13151830

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.