From the report
> In this review, we used the electronic databases and search engines including Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Google Scholar without time constraints. The search keywords contained “Propolis,” “Blood pressure,” “Hypertension,” “Hypotensive,” “Anti-hypertensive,” “Hypertensive,” “Diuretic,” “Diabetes,” “Hyperglycemia,” “Insulin,” “Hypoglycemic,” “Blood glucose,” “Dyslipidemia,” “Hyperlipidemia,” “High cholesterol,” “Hypercholesterolemia,” “Atherogenic,” “Atherosclerosis,” “Obesity,” “Anti-obesity,” “Bodyweight,” “Food intake,” and “Feed intake”.
My chief objection to this type of meta-analysis is it only looks for positive results, hence severe confirmation bias. I really only looked at it because it was listed the NIH in the address. It turns out they preface the article with a disclaimer:
> As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|