Authors' response to comments from Nachman KE et al.

Authors' response to comments letter to the editor from Nachman KE et al.

Updated systematic review: associations between proximity to animal feeding operations and health of individuals in nearby communities.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to update a systematic review of associations between living near an animal feeding operation (AFO) and human health. METHODS: The MEDLINE® and MEDLINE® In-Process, Centre for Agricultural Biosciences Abstracts, and Science Citation Index databases were searched. Reference lists of included articles were hand-searched. Eligible studies reported exposure to an AFO and an individual-level human health outcome. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: The search returned 3702 citations. Sixteen articles consisting of 10 study populations were included in the analysis. The health outcomes were lower and upper respiratory tracts, MRSA, other infectious disease, neurological, psychological, dermatological, otologic, ocular, gastrointestinal, stress and mood, and other non-infectious health outcomes. Most studies were observational and used prevalence measures of outcome. An association between Q fever risk and proximity to goat production was reported. Other associations were unclear. Risk of bias was serious or critical for most exposure-outcome associations. Multiplicity (i.e., a large number of potentially correlated outcomes and exposures assessed on the same study subjects) was common in the evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies reported an association between surrogate clinical outcomes and AFO proximity for respiratory tract-related outcomes. There were no consistent dose-response relationships between surrogate clinical outcome and AFO proximity. A new finding was that Q fever in goats is likely associated with an increased Q fever risk in community members. The review results for the non-respiratory health outcomes were inconclusive because only a small number of studies were available or the between-study results were inconsistent. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014010521.

Systematic review of the magnitude of change in prevalence and quantity of Salmonella after administration of pathogen reduction treatments on pork carcasses.

OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we summarized change in Salmonella prevalence and/or quantity associated with pathogen reduction treatments (washes, sprays, steam) on pork carcasses or skin-on carcass parts in comparative designs (natural or artificial contamination). METHODS: In January 2015, CAB Abstracts (1910-2015), SCI and CPCI-Science (1900-2015), Medline® and Medline® In-Process (1946-2015) (OVIDSP), Science.gov, and Safe Pork (1996-2012) were searched with no language or publication type restrictions. Reference lists of 24 review articles were checked. Two independent reviewers screened 4001 titles/abstracts and assessed 122 full-text articles for eligibility. Only English-language records were extracted. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (5 in commercial abattoirs) were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers independently. Risk of bias due to systematic error was moderate; a major source of bias was the potential differential recovery of Salmonella from treated carcasses due to knowledge of the intervention. The most consistently observed association was a positive effect of acid washes on categorical measures of Salmonella; however, this was based on individual results, not a summary effect measure. CONCLUSION: There was no strong evidence that any one intervention protocol (acid temperature, acid concentration, water temperature) was clearly superior to others for Salmonella control.