CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFood Safety and HygieneListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of Salmonella enterica and the Hygienic Indicator Escherichia coli in Raw Meat at Markets in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

Open access
Kagambèga, Assèta, Haukka, Kaisa, Siitonen, Anja, Traoré, Alfred S., Barro, Nicolas·2011·Journal of Food Protection
DOI 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-124
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigated the hygienic status and prevalence of Salmonella and Escherichia coli in retail meat sold at open markets in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. A total of 150 samples of beef meat (n = 45), beef intestine (n = 45), mutton (n = 30), and chicken (n = 30) were collected from four local markets for investigation. The prevalence of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica was 9.3%, and six serotypes, all previously unreported in Burkina Faso, were identified: Derby, Tilene, Hato, Bredeney, Agona, and Senftenberg. Most of the Salmonella isolates were sensitive to the 12 antimicrobial drugs tested. The prevalence of E. coli was 100% in all the meat types. An assessment of hygiene practices for the production, transportation, display, and vending of the meat revealed unhygienic conditions. Meat sellers had a low education level and poor knowledge of foodborne pathogens and their transmission routes. The findings showed that foodstuff handlers were in dire need of education about safe food handling practices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-124

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Twelve of the 16 serotypes identified in this study had already been detected in food animals or edible vegetables in Burkina Faso between 2008 and 2018.

    “Twelve of these 16 serotypes have already been detected in food animals or edible vegetables in Burkina Faso, between 2008 and 2018”

    From Contamination of street food with multidrug-resistant Salmonella, in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (2021) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Abstract and the section on Salmonella serotypes report six serotypes in raw meat from Burkina Faso, within the stated 2008–2018 period. The paper does not establish that twelve of the citing study’s sixteen serotypes had been detected, or report detections in edible vegetables. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Barro, 2006, Hygienic status assessment of dishwaters, utensils, hands and pieces of money in street foods vending sites in Ouagadougou; Burkina Faso, Afr. J. Biotechnol., 5, 1107
  2. Chahed, 2008, Prévalence et caractérisation de souches d’Esch- erichia coli O157 producteurs de shiga-toxines isolées de denrées alimentaires d’origine animale en Belgique et en Algérie, Med. Vet., 152, 39
  3. Mensah, 2001, Bacterial contaminants in lettuce, tomatoes, beef and goat meat from metropolitan Accra, Ghana Med. J., 35, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kagambèga, A., Haukka, K., Siitonen, A., Traoré, A. S., & Barro, N.
Affiliations
  • Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo (BF)
  • Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (FI)
Corresponding author
Haukka, Kaisa
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Food Protection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
74
Issue
9
Pages
1547-1551
ISSN
0362-028X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-124
OpenAlex
W1618159596
Semantic Scholar
88080061d3ae1a67e858df605e8ed06539a54dff
Cited by
44
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Food Protection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Academy of Finland
  • Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Keywords
Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli, raw meat, foodborne pathogens, meat safety, serotypes, antimicrobial susceptibility, food handler knowledge, safe food handling, retail meat markets, Ouagadougou
MeSH terms
Animals, Burkina Faso, Cattle, Chickens, Commerce, Educational Status, Escherichia coli, Food Contamination, Humans, Hygiene, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Meat, Sheep, Socioeconomic Factors, Prevalence, Salmonella enterica, Drug Resistance, Bacterial

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review