Outbreak reportcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-VEG-03 standard review

Listeria in packaged salads

Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis Associated with Packaged Leafy Green Salads, United States and Canada, 2015-2016.

Overview

Self JL et al.. Emerg Infect Dis 2019 · PMID 31310227 · DOI 10.3201/eid2508.180761

33 listeriosis cases linked to salads from one factory.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Investigate outbreak

How was the study done?

Genomic outbreak study

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

33 cases

What was actually found?

One facility

How large was the observed effect?

Not applicable

What do the results mean in everyday life?

High-risk groups need care with packaged salads.

What are the study's limitations?

Single event

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Partly supports

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Moderate

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot show salads are generally harmful.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Self JL, Conrad A, Stroika S, Jackson A, Whitlock L, Jackson KA, Beal J, Wellman A, Fatica MK, Bidol S, Huth PP, Hamel M, Franklin K, Tschetter L, Kopko C, Kirsch P, Wise ME, Basler C
Journal
Emerg Infect Dis
Year
2019
Identifier
PMID 31310227 DOI 10.3201/eid2508.180761 · PMC6649349
Verification
verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

not stated in abstract

2. Research question

Investigate listeriosis cluster.

3. Study design and population

Study design
Outbreak report – Outbreak investigation with whole-genome MLST
Population

Case-patients

Country

USA, Canada

Period

July 2015 - January 2016

Sample size

19 US + 14 Canadian cases

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

WGS-linked cases

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Packaged salads from one facility

Comparator

None

Endpoints

Listeriosis

Statistical methods

Genomic comparison

5. Actual results

Results

19 US cases; all 16 interviewed ate salad; 9 recalling brand linked to one facility; 14 Canadian cases; facility and product isolates closely related; recall.

Absolute risks

not reported

Authors' conclusion

Research needed to reduce Listeria contamination of fresh produce.

6. Strengths

  • Genomic confirmation

7. Weaknesses

  • Small

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
none applicable
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
low
Rationale

Robust.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Descriptive.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Supports C-VEG-03.

11. Independent contrary findings

Context of rarity.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Moderate.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Correct but generalised.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualityhigh
Risk of biaslow
Precision of resultsnot applicable
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)essentially correct but incomplete

14. Open questions

None.

15. Linked fact checks

Use by the Tayebat archive

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study

Bibliography: Listeria in packaged salads.

A. What was actually studied?

Listeriosis outbreak.

B. What did the authors find?

Facility-linked salads.

C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?

Prevention research needed.

D. What does the archive derive from it?

Greens are dangerous.

E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?

Shows a processing-facility contamination, not inherent harm.

Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
essentially correct but incomplete