Synergistic Effect of Combination of Microbial Hurdles in the Biopreservation of Meat and Meat Products

Your protocol was rejected with the following message:
From your synthesis strategy it appears that you are intending to conduct an evidence mapping exercise and not a Systematic Review. I am therefore rejecting your protocol and you should submit a new protocol under either 'Systematic Map' or 'other configurative review' or substantially revise to meet the definition of a 'Systematic Review'.

Manuscript Number	PROCEED-23-00084
1. Title (review question)	Synergistic Effect of Combination of Microbial Hurdles in the Biopreservation of Meat and Meat Products
2. Type of review	Systematic Review Protocol
3. Authors and Affiliations	Marcelina Karbowiak (marcelina_karbowiak@sggw.edu.pl), Poland, Warsaw University of Life Sciences Piotr Szymański (piotr.szymanski@ibprs.pl), Poland, Institute of Agricultural and Food Biotechnology – State Research Institute Dorota Zielińska (dorota_zielińska@sggw.edu.pl), Poland, Warsaw University of Life Science
4. Corresponding author’s email address	marcelina_karbowiak@sggw.edu.pl
5. Keywords Keywords (Max 5)	Combination, Microbial Hurdle Technology, Biopreservation, Meat
6. Background Background Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. The protocol must indicate why this study was necessary, what it aims to contribute to the field and who are the intended users of your findings.	There has been a huge interest in the development of natural antimicrobials or combinations of natural antimicrobials on account of increasing pressure from con-sumers for safe-to-eat and high-quality clean-label food products which are minimally processed and maintains its quality attributes throughout relatively long shelf life. In the meantime, foodborne pathogens pose a threat to international public health and safety. Although meat and meat products are still one of the best nutrient sources for humans due to their excellent protein content, essential amino acids, vitamin B groups, and minerals, as a result of their high water activity and nutrient composition, these products are also an ideal environment for foodborne pathogens, as well as spoilage microorganisms. In response to this need, interest in the meat industry is focused on biopreservation strategies. Biopreservation is the use of natural or controlled primary and/or secondary metabolites or antimicrobials from such sources as bacteria, fungi, plants, and animals, as a way of preserving food (for example minimizing lipid oxidation or reducing colour losses) and extending product shelf life. Alternatively, biopreservative agents could also be used as part of a hurdles technology approach, where they would be strategically combined with other barriers in order to prevent food spoilage. In addition, a preliminary literature search revealed that at present, there were no reviews that have summarized the synergistic effect of the combination of bacterially derived antimicrobials on preventing the growth of pathogenic and spoilage bacteria in the meat product.
6.1 Theory of change or causal model Theory of change or causal model Provide a theory of change and/or conceptual model that describes the hypothesised link(s) between the intervention/exposure to the outcome(s). Use either text or attach graphic as an additional file.	In Europe every year, it is estimated almost one in eight people, become ill due to the consumption of contaminated food each year. Contamination of food can happen anywhere in the food handling process, starting on the farm — and ending on your fork. In view of the numerous positive reports on the antimicrobial effect of biological preservatives of bacterial origin and their possible synergistic effect, this review will aim to present the available knowledge about the combined antimicrobial effect of different microbial hurdles to control the proliferation of undesirable microorganisms in different meat products.
6.2 Stakeholder engagement Stakeholder engagement Describe the role of stakeholders in the formulation of the question and this protocol and any further role throughout the review process.	Expert consultations will be conducted in the first stage of the review process to sharpen the search strategy by determining relevant concepts, frameworks and topics, keywords, and eligibility criteria.
7. Objectives and review question Objectives and review question State the primary review question (and secondary questions when applicable)	The article will aim to systematically review the available knowledge about the combined antimicrobial effect of different microbial hurdles to control the proliferation of unde-sirable microorganisms in different meat products. Focus Question - what is the effect of using a combination of different bacterial antimicrobials in inhibiting the growth of pathogenic and spoilage bacteria in a meat model? What are the main mechanisms and/or compounds with the potential to be used in biopreservation? How can these bacterial antimicrobials be applied in the industry of meat products?
7.1 Definitions of the question components Definitions of the question components Break down and summarise question key elements e.g. population, intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), and outcome(s).	The Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome (PICO) design methodology will be used to express the key issue. (P)opulation constitutes to meat and meat products, (I)ntervention pertaines to the combination of different bacterial anti-microbials, (C)omparator constitutes to no combination used, single antimicrobial or other agents, and (O)utcome referres to inhibition of growth of pathogenic and spoilage bacteria.
8. Search strategy Search strategy Detail the planned search strategy to be used. Sources of articles searched should capture both conventionally published scientific literature and grey literature using a combination of databases, search engines and specialist websites (may also be informed by stakeholders) or limitations should be fully justified. Provide information about the sources to be searched and search options selected, together with dates of search and any language limitations. All search terms and search strings, with Boolean operators (‘AND’, ‘OR’ etc.) and wildcards, should be clearly stated for each major source (e.g. databases, search engines) so that the exact search is replicable by a third party but search terms for minor sources (e.g. specialist websites), can be left flexible. Some of these elements may be detailed in 8.1-8.3 below.	The search strategy for PubMed and adapted for other databases, as appropriate: Applied entries with the Boolean Operators: ((meat) OR (poultry) OR (beef) OR (pork) OR (meat AND product)) AND ((cell-free AND supernatant) OR (supernatant) OR (metabolite) OR (postbiotic) OR (bacteriocin-like AND inhibitory AND substance) OR (BLIS) OR (bacteriocin) OR (starter AND culture) OR (lactobacillus) OR (lactic AND acid AND bacteria)) AND ((mixed) OR (combination) OR (dual) OR (synerg)) OR (additivity) AND ((spoilage AND bacteria) OR (antagonistic AND activity) OR (bioprotection) OR (protective AND ability) OR (foodborne AND pathogens) OR (growth AND inhibition) OR (hurdle AND technology) OR (shelf AND life) OR (food AND hygiene) OR (bioprotection))
8.1 Bibliographic databases Bibliographic databases Provide details of all bibliographic databases to be searched, including database names accessed, institutional subscriptions (or date ranges subscribed for each database), search options (e.g. ‘topic words’ or ‘full text’ search facility), languages and search strings	The following databases will be searched: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with restricted search to the English language. Two of the researchers will design the search algorithms by combining them with the Boolean Operators. The keywords will be carefully selected and tested to enable the widest possible screening of the available, but also relevant literature, in accordance with the methodology of Bramer et al. (2018). The search query will be adjusted to the structure of each database. Searching through databases will containe the title, and abstract of articles (PubMed), the title, abstract of articles and keywords attached to the article by its authors (Scopus), and ‘topic’ which includes title, abstract, author, and keywords (Web of Science).
8.2 Web-based search engines Web-based search engines Provide details of all web-based search engines to be searched, including names, languages and search strings.	The search engine Google Scholar will be used to identify additional literature that can not be found in the bibliographic databases. We will focus only on the grey literature launched by this search engine.
8.3 Organisational websites Organisational websites Provide details of all organisational websites to be searched, including names, languages and search strings.	Not applicable
8.4 Comprehensiveness of the search Comprehensiveness of the search Describe the process by which the comprehensiveness of the search strategy was assessed (i.e. by percentage retrieval of an independently assembled list of benchmark articles known to be eligible). Describe the outcome of the assessment and your subsequent action if necessary.	The comprehensiveness of our search string was tested using 6-8 papers considered relevant (by the whole team) as an indicator of a successful search. If those key papers, or the majority (at least 6), were returned by the search string, it was considered an optimum. However, if that search string did not return the majority of papers, it was modified.
8.5 Search update Search update Describe any plans to update the searches during the conduct of the review.	We do not plan to update the searches during the map because we anticipate publishing the map report within 12 months of the searches.
9. Screening strategy Screening strategy Describe the methodology for screening articles/studies for eligibility.	The following databases will be searched: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with restricted search to the English language. Two of the researchers will design the search algorithms by combining them with the Boolean Operators. The keywords will be carefully selected and tested to enable the widest possible screening of the available, but also relevant literature, in accordance with the methodology of Bramer et al. (2018). The search query will be adjusted to the structure of each database. Searching through databases will containe the title, and abstract of articles (PubMed), the title, abstract of articles and keywords attached to the article by its authors (Scopus), and ‘topic’ which includes title, abstract, author, and keywords (Web of Science). One of the researchers will download the RIS files generated by each database and upload the files to the Rayyan® web application for systematic reviews for organization and screening for identifying further potential articles. Literature titles and abstracts will be also reviewed for duplication across search engines.
9.1 Eligibility criteria Eligibility criteria Describe the criteria used to assess eligibility of articles/studies for review. These must be broken down into the question key elements (e.g. relevant subject populations(s), intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), outcomes, study design(s)) and any other restrictions (e.g. date ranges or languages). Eligibility criteria should be precisely defined (e.g. reliance on broad and potentially ambiguous terms should be avoided) and expressly related to each key element of the question.	Studies will be eligible to be included for analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) published since 2010; (2) experimental in vitro study; (3) referred to the synergistic antibacterial effect of different microorganisms or bacterial metabolites applied in combination to (4) enhance food safety, extend the shelf life, and for biopreservation of contaminated meat and meat products. Exclusion criteria will be: (1) animal studies, human trials, or in vivo studies; (2) unpublished data; (3) duplicate data/publications, (4) reviews, letters, case reports/series, and editorials, and (5) articles without sufficient details on either the antimicrobial agents or the meat application. In order to include a wide range of possible studies, no restrictions will place on the control sample. To that end, studies without a comparator, e.g. without comparing to antimicrobial agents used separately, will be also included. The exclusion criteria will embrace a combination of microbial hurdles with organic acids or salts of organic acids. Despite the fact that e.g. lactic acid and other organic acids are chemical compounds that can be produced by microbial activity, other ways to obtain them are chemical synthesis or acquisition using enzymes. Thus, they are predominantly classified as chemical additives to control microbial growth, improve sensory attributes and extend the shelf life of various food systems including meat, and poultry. Not being 100% sure of their microbial origin, studies, where organic acids and their derivative salts were used in combination with other microbial hurdles for meat biopreservation will be excluded from the review.
9.2 Consistency checking Consistency checking Describe the process for checking consistency of decisions including the levels at which consistency checking will be undertaken and estimated proportion of articles/studies that will be screened and checked for consistency by two or more reviewers (e.g. Titles (10%), abstracts (10%), full text (100%)). The eligibility criteria should be independently applied by more than one reviewer to a sample of justified size of the screened articles/studies at title, abstract and full text. Replicability of eligibility decisions should be measured and reported and all disagreements between reviewers discussed so that the resolutions informed subsequent assessments.	Consistency checking will be undertaken at both screening stages, Title and Abstract, and Full text. Each article will be assessed by one of at least two trained reviewers, who will undertake a consistency check between them, using a subset of double-screened articles (minimum 10%) to maximize the consistency of applying the eligibility criteria. We will use percentage agreements to assess the inter-reviewer consistency of the subset of articles. Discrepancies will be discussed and clarifications in interpreting the eligibility criteria to maximise the consistency for remaining studies. A third reviewer will be consulted if a decision cannot be reached, and clarification on eligibility criteria will be added to aid further decision making. If the inter-reviewer consistency is low, the consistency checking will be repeated using a further subset of articles (minimum 10%), until a good inter-reviewer agreement is achieved, at which point, the rest of the articles will be screened independently, with spot checks to identify any decision drift. Borderline articles will be flagged to other reviewers for discussion.
9.3 Reporting screening outcomes Reporting screening outcomes State here how you will report the outcomes of screening (e.g. ROSES diagram plus list of eligible articles plus list of full text articles excluded with reasons for exclusion).	Screening outcomes will be reported in a PRISMA diagram and a list of eligible articles.
10. Study validity assessment Study validity assessment Describe here the method you propose for critical appraisal of study validity. An effort should be made to identify all sources of bias relevant to individual included studies (threats to internal and external validity). Each type of bias or threat to internal and external validity should assessed individually for all included studies. You may include a critical appraisal sheet.	The qualitative analysis included studies that met the selection criteria. Accordingly to Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management Version 5.1 2022, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Critical Appraisal Tool Version 0.3 (Prototype) will be applied for evaluating the ‘risk of bias’ (or threats to internal validity) of primary studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions or impacts of exposures in environmental management, since there is no standard risk of bias tool for in vitro studies. The tool is designed for environmental management research such as example pathogen control, which is the subject of the following review. In the CEE tool, seven criteria of systematic bias that may threaten the internal validity of studies were appointed – the risks of con-founding biases, post-intervention/exposure selection biases, misclassified comparison biases (observational studies only) – not applicable, performance biases (experimental studies only), detection biases, outcome reporting biases, and finally outcome assessment biases. Each question will be answered. Assessors may select: 'yes', 'seemingly yes', 'seemingly no', and 'no' answers. Once assessors responded to all checklist questions within a risk-of-bias criterion, they judged a risk of bias for the criterion. The levels of risk of bias were selected from the following: 'low risk of bias', 'medium risk of bias', and 'high risk of bias'.
10.1 Consistency checking Consistency checking Describe how repeatability of critical appraisal of study validity will be tested. At least two people should critically appraise (or cross check appraisal of) each study	Not applicable
11. Data extraction strategy Data extraction strategy Describe the data to be extracted and the method for extraction of qualitative and/or quantitative study findings (including use of forms/data sheets), and including approaches to missing data, so that the process can be replicated.	Studies that pass the relevance assessment at the full text will have data extracted into a spreadsheet by a trained reviewer.
11.1 Meta-data extraction and coding strategy Meta-data extraction and coding strategy Describe the metadata to be coded and the methods for coding of studies (including use of forms/data sheets, listing variables to be coded), so that the process can be replicated.	Not applicable
11.2 Consistency checking Consistency checking Describe how repeatability of the meta-data/data extraction process will be tested.	Not applicable
12. Potential effect modifiers/reasons for heterogeneity Potential effect modifiers/reasons for heterogeneity Provide a list of effect modifiers/reasons for heterogeneity that will be considered in the review. Also provide explanation of how the list was compiled (including consultation of external experts).	Not applicable
13. Type of synthesis Type of synthesis State the type(s) of synthesis planned (e.g. narrative only, narrative and quantitative, narrative and qualitative, narrative, qualitative and quantitative, narrative and mixed-methods).	Narrative only.
13.1 Narrative synthesis methods Narrative synthesis methods Describe methods to be used for a narrative synthesis of the evidence base (e.g. in the form of descriptive statistics, tables (including any mapping) and figures).	We will provide a narrative summary of the evidence. The summary will describe the types of studies. We will summarise any information in tables wherever possible (e.g. biopreservative agents, product, target microorganism(s), results, and the effect observed). This will be used to identify and prioritise key knowledge gaps and clusters.
13.2 Quantitative synthesis methods Quantitative synthesis methods If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, describe planned methods for calculating effect sizes, methods for handling complex data, statistical methods for combining data from individual studies, and any planned exploration of heterogeneity (e.g. sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and meta-regression). If all studies may not be selected for synthesis explain criteria for selection (e.g. incomplete or missing information).	Not applicable
13.3 Qualitative synthesis methods Qualitative synthesis methods Describe methods to be used for synthesising qualitative data and justify your methodological choice. Describe if and how you plan to analyse subgroups/subsets of data. If all studies may not be selected for synthesis explain criteria for selection (e.g. incomplete or missing information).	Not applicable
13.4 Other synthesis methods Other synthesis methods Describe any other approaches to be used for synthesising data or combining qualitative and quantitative synthesis (e.g. mixed-methods) and justify your methodological choice.	Not applicable
14. Assessment of risk of publication bias Assessment of risk of publication bias Describe planned methods for examining the possible influence of publication bias on the synthesis.	Articles will be assessed using a critical appraisal tool for evaluating ‘risk of bias’ (or threats to internal validity) of primary studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions or impacts of exposures in environmental management - Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Critical Appraisal Tool Version 0.3 (Prototype).
15. Knowledge gap identification strategy Knowledge gap identification strategy If you plan to identify knowledge gaps in the evidence base, detail your methods here.	Not applicable
16. Demonstrating procedural independence Demonstrating procedural independence Describe the method to ensure review team members who have also authored articles to be considered within the review have no role in decisions regarding inclusion or critical appraisal of their own work.	To ensure procedural independence, one person will screen the articles and two other team members will double-check that the articles meet the inclusion criteria accurately.
17. Competing interests Competing interests Describe of any financial or non-financial competing interests that the review authors may have.	The authors declare no conflict of interest.
18. Funding information Funding information All sources of funding for the review should be declared. The proposed role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be declared.	This research received no external funding.
19. Author’s contributions Author’s contributions The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the data. RH and AC performed the searching and screening. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."	Conceptualization, M.K., P.S. and D.Z.; methodology, M.K.; investigation, M.K.; resources, M.K.; data curation, M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.; writing— review and editing, M.K., P.S. and D.Z.
20. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials. Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.	Not applicable
21. References References Please use a consistent style for presenting references	Not applicable
Created	Feb 23, 2023
Last updated	Apr 2, 2023
Submitted	Feb 23, 2023
Published	(not set)
Categories	AgricultureFor reviews that will inform decisions in the agrucltural sector Environment and Human Health Sustainability
Files