Prevalence of Escherichia coli generic and pathogenic in pork meat: systematic review and meta-analysis

This research aimed to analyze scientific information regarding the prevalence of generic and pathogenic E. coli  in the production and supply chain of pork meat, considering different types of samples, places of sampling, and pathotypes using a systematic review and meta-analysis tools. The meta-an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:World journal of microbiology & biotechnology Vol. 39; no. 9; p. 247
Main Authors: Blanco-Lizarazo, Carla María, Sierra-Cadavid, Andrea
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01-09-2023
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This research aimed to analyze scientific information regarding the prevalence of generic and pathogenic E. coli  in the production and supply chain of pork meat, considering different types of samples, places of sampling, and pathotypes using a systematic review and meta-analysis tools. The meta-analysis for the prevalence of generic and pathogenic E. coli was conducted by estimating the effects within subgroups. Data subsets were analyzed using the DerSimonian-Laird method for binary random effects. The average prevalence of generic  E. coli  in different types of pork meat samples was determined to be 35.6% (95% CI 19.3–51.8), with no significant differences observed between pork meat and carcasses. Conversely, the average prevalence of  E. coli  pathotypes in samples related to the supply chain of pork meat was found to be 4.7% (95% CI 3.7–5.7). In conclusion, these findings suggest the possibility of establishing an objective threshold for E. coli prevalence as a benchmark for comparison within the meat industry. By utilizing this data, it becomes possible to propose a standardized limit that can serve as a reference point for evaluating and improving processes in the industry.
Bibliography:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
ObjectType-Article-3
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ISSN:0959-3993
1573-0972
DOI:10.1007/s11274-023-03687-0