ReviewNutrients2024
Postbiotics: Mapping the Trend.
Review in Nutrients, 2024. 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.
- Artificial intelligence in immune checkpoint inhibitor research: A bibliometric analysis of the landscape.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- DualFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Postbiotics and paraprobiotics in food biochemistry mechanisms stability and nutritional applications.NPJ science of food · 2026Review
- Metagenomic insights into postbiotic-mediated modulation of strawberry surface microbiome and metabolic activity.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Emerging Nonthermal Technologies for the Production of Postbiotics.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025Review
- Bacterial extracellular vesicles for gut microbiome-host communication and drug development.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the consensus of ISAPP on the definition of the term "postbiotic" there has been an enthusiasm for publications in review form-their number being disproportionate to the primary research. The aim of this bibliometry is to analyze the bibliometric trends of this newfound interest in the field.
methodsSearch of the PubMed database for review articles on postbiotics, published between November 2021 and June 2024.
resultsAnalysis was performed on 92 review articles, the number corresponding to 2.9 reviews per month. China, Poland, Italy, Iran and India had the maximum productivity among the 32 countries involved; 21 articles were published in 13 journals with the highest impact factor, while 45 were in 16 journals with an IF between 4.0 and 4.9. The authors were mainly affiliated to universities with specialization in both basic research and technology, as well as food science. The top five publications regarding the citations received, published in
conclusionsThe ever-growing number of reviews regarding postbiotics is perhaps disproportionate to the actual original research in the field. Further clinical trials would extend and deepen the subject and facilitate the drowning of more robust conclusions in relation to their effects.
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.