4.6 Review

Arcobacter species in milk contamination: a prevalence-based systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 134, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jambio/lxac037

关键词

food safety; dairy; infection; microbial contamination; detection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the occurrence of pathogenic Arcobacter species in 2945 milk samples and found that the global prevalence of Arcobacter genus in milk was 12%, with Arcobacter butzleri being the most prevalent. The prevalence of Arcobacter in milk was 13%, 10%, and 9% in Europe, South America, and Asia, respectively.
Aims Milk is consumed raw or minimally processed and plays a role in the dissemination of pathogens of public health concerns. The present investigation is aimed at assessing the occurrence of pathogenic Arcobacter species in 2945 milk samples. Methods and Results Arcobacter data systematically retrieved from five repositories until 20 February 2022 according to PRISMA principles were logit transformed and fitted using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. The between-study heterogeneity was estimated as I-2-value. Leave-one-out cross-validation and funnel plot with Egger's tests were used to assess the hardiness and bias in the model. The global prevalence of Arcobacter genus in the milk was 12% [95% confidence interval (CI): 7-19%; I-2 = 87.3%, 95% CI: 83.0-90.6%] and no publication bias observed (Egger's test: P = 0.112). Arcobacter genus prevalence in milk was 13% (95% CI: 5-30%), 10% (95% CI: 1-46%), and 9% (95% CI: 4-19%) in Europe, South America, and Asia, respectively. Arcobacter butzleri was the most prevalent [8% (95% CI: 4-13%)], followed by A. cryaerophilus [0.6% (95% CI: 0.2-33.2%)] and A. skirrowii [0.19% (95% CI: 0.03-1.2%)]. Also, species-specific prevalence of A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, and A. skirrowii varied continentally, but the test for species-specific/continental differences was not significantly different (P > 0.5).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据