The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Low Prevalence of Human Pathogens on Fresh Produce on Farms and in Packing Facilities: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00040 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amelia E. Van Pelt, Beatriz Quiñones, Hannah L. Lofgren, Faith E. Bartz, Kira L. Newman, Juan S. Leon |
| Abstract |
Foodborne illness burdens individuals around the world and may be caused by consuming fresh produce contaminated with bacterial, parasite, and viral pathogens. Pathogen contamination on produce may originate at the farm and packing facility. This research aimed to determine the prevalence of human pathogens (bacteria, parasites, and viruses) on fresh produce (fruits, herbs, and vegetables) on farms and in packing facilities worldwide through a systematic review of 38 peer-reviewed articles. The median and range of the prevalence was calculated, and Kruskal-Wallis tests and logistic regression were performed to compare prevalence among pooled samples of produce groups, pathogen types, and sampling locations. Results indicated a low median percentage of fresh produce contaminated with pathogens (0%). Both viruses (p-value = 0.017) and parasites (p-value = 0.033), on fresh produce, exhibited higher prevalence than bacteria. No significant differences between fresh produce types or between farm and packing facility were observed. These results may help to better quantify produce contamination in the production environment and inform strategies to prevent future foodborne illness. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 27% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 27 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2021.
All research outputs
#14,968,843
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,105
of 10,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,054
of 330,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#85
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,325 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.