ArticleFood science of animal resources2022
Antimicrobial Activity of Propolis Extract and Their Application as a Natural Preservative in Livestock Products: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Food science of animal resources, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncovering the gastroprotective properties of araucaria brown propolis and its active compound, abietic acid.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial Properties of Hive Products and Their Potential Applications in Human and Veterinary Medicine.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Study on the current research trends and future agenda in animal products: an Asian perspective.Journal of animal science and technology · 2023Review
- Antimicrobial properties ofVeterinarni medicina · 2023Article
- Quantitative Risk Assessment of Hepatitis a Virus Infection Arising from the Consumption of Fermented Clams in South Korea.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of propolis extract as a natural preservative for livestock products in term of chemical and microbiological characteristics by meta-analysis. The stages carried out in this study were identification, selection, checking suitability, and the resulting selected articles were used in the meta-analysis. The selection results obtained a total of 22 selected journal articles consisting of 9 articles for analysis of the antimicrobial activity of propolis extract and 13 articles for analysis of the chemical and mirobiological characteristics of livestock products. The articles were obtained from electronic databases, namely Science Direct and Google Scholar. The model used in this study is the random-effect model involving two groups, control and experimental. Heterogeneity and effect size values were carried out in this study using Hedge's obtained through openMEE software. Forest plot tests and data validation on publication bias was obtained using Kendall's test throught JASP 0.14.1 software. The results showed that there is a significant relationship between propolis extract with the results of the antimicrobial activity (p<0.05). In addition, the results of the application of propolis extract on the livestock products for the test microbes and the value of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARs) showed significant results (p<0.05). Conclusion based on the random-effect model on the effectiveness of antimicrobial activity of propolis extract and their apllication as a natural preservative of the chemical and microbiological characteristics of livestock products is valid by Kendall's test (p>0.05). Propolis in this case effectively used as natural preservatives in livestock products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.