ArticlePeerJ2026
European foulbrood disease and protein supplementation in honey bee (
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Beekeepers engaging in highbush blueberry pollination in Canada and the U.S. have raised concerns over poor colony health outcomes presenting as European foulbrood disease (EFB), which highlights a need for improved management strategies supporting colony health during and after pollination. We assessed over 200 colonies belonging to five beekeepers before, at the end, and three weeks following the end of the blueberry pollination period. Half of the colonies at each site were provided with MegaBee pollen supplement and scored for EFB prevalence and severity to test the hypothesis that protein patty supplementation could prevent or mitigate disease development. Before pollination, EFB prevalence was overall low for each beekeeper, with 0-17% of colonies displaying symptoms. In contrast, EFB prevalence was higher post-pollination, ranging from 12-57% symptomatic colonies, though temporal changes were not statistically significant for every beekeeper. Field disease assessments were corroborated with droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) analyses of
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.