ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology1997
Comparison of commercially available kits with standard methods for detection of Salmonella strains in foods.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Verification of different methods used for isolating Salmonella enterica serovar Dublin from cattle feces.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2023Article
- Salmonella identification from foods in eight hours: A prototype study with Salmonella Typhimurium.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2012Article
- Epidemiological investigation of eaeA-positive Escherichia coli and Escherichia albertii strains isolated from healthy wild birds.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2011Article
- Optimization of a 12-hour TaqMan PCR-based method for detection of Salmonella bacteria in meat.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2007Article
- Toward an international standard for PCR-based detection of food-borne thermotolerant Campylobacters: assay development and analytical validation.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2003Article
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
Six commercial kits were compared with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) method and the Japanese standard method for Salmonella isolation in foods. When only Salmonella serovars were tested, many of the methods performed well; however, when foods were artificially inoculated, only the USFDA method and immunomagnetic separation coupled with the xylose-lysine-brilliant green agar method (MS-XLBG) could positively detect Salmonella serovars. All seven wild-type Salmonella serovars were detected by the USFDA method, and the MS-XLBG method detected salmonellae from six samples.
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.