Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34745425›Full record

SynthesisOxidative medicine and cellular longevity2021

Bioactive Compounds from Kefir and Their Potential Benefits on Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Carla P Vieira, Anisio Iuri L S Rosario, Carini A Lelis, Bruna Samara S Rekowsky, Anna Paula A Carvalho, Denes Kaic A Rosário, Thaísa A Elias, Marion P Costa, Debora Foguel, Carlos A Conte-Junior

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Carla P VieiraCenter for Food Analysis (NAL), Technological Development Support Laboratory (LADETEC), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-598, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4255-6088
Anisio Iuri L S RosarioLaboratory of Advanced Analysis in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (LAABBM), Department of Biochemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-909, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-2372
Carini A LelisCenter for Food Analysis (NAL), Technological Development Support Laboratory (LADETEC), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-598, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9247-0805
Bruna Samara S RekowskyLaboratory of Inspection and Technology of Milk and Derivatives, Escola de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, 40170-110 Bahia, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2161-2714
Anna Paula A CarvalhoCenter for Food Analysis (NAL), Technological Development Support Laboratory (LADETEC), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-598, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9258-5947
Denes Kaic A RosárioCenter for Food Analysis (NAL), Technological Development Support Laboratory (LADETEC), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-598, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8565-2021
Thaísa A EliasLaboratory of Advanced Analysis in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (LAABBM), Department of Biochemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-909, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6773-9086
Marion P CostaLaboratory of Inspection and Technology of Milk and Derivatives, Escola de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, 40170-110 Bahia, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3003-6763
Debora FoguelLaboratory of Protein Aggregation and Amyloidosis, Instituto de Bioquímica Médica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 21941-590 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7312-7115
Carlos A Conte-JuniorCenter for Food Analysis (NAL), Technological Development Support Laboratory (LADETEC), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-598, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6133-5080

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite evidence of health benefits from kefir administration, a systematic review with meta-analysis on bioactive compounds associated with these benefits is still absent in the literature. Kefir is fermented milk resulting from the metabolism of a complex microbiota in symbiosis. Recent researches have investigated the bioactive compounds responsible for the preventive and therapeutic effects attributed to kefir. However, differences in functional potential between industrial and artisanal kefir are still controversial. Firstly, we identified differences in the microbial composition among both types of kefir. Available evidence concerning the action of different bioactive compounds from kefir on health, both from

Indexed as

KefirAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsBiological ProductsFermentationHumansImmunomodulating AgentsMilkAnti-Infective AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsBiological ProductsImmunomodulating Agents

Identifiers

PMID34745425
PMCPMC8566050

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.