SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Can Propolis Be a Useful Adjuvant in Brain and Neurological Disorders and Injuries? A Systematic Scoping Review of the Latest Experimental Evidence.

Biomedicines · 2021-09-15

DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines9091227PMID: 34572413

Open accessScoping Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Propolis has been used therapeutically for centuries. In recent years, research has demonstrated its efficacy as a potential raw material for pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. The aim of the present scoping review is to examine the latest experimental evidence regarding the potential use of propolis in protecting the brain and treating neurological disorders and injuries. A systematic scoping review methodology was implemented. Identification of the research themes and knowledge gap was performed. After applying the exclusion criteria, a total of 66 research publications were identified and retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Google Scholar. Several key themes where propolis is potentially useful were subsequently identified, namely detoxification, neuroinflammation, ischemia/ischemia-reperfusion injury/traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and epilepsy models, depression, cytotoxicity, cognitive improvement, regenerative medicine, brain infection, and adverse effects. In conclusion, propolis is shown to have protective and therapeutic benefits in alleviating symptoms of brain and neurological disorders and injuries, demonstrated by various in vitro studies, animal models, and human clinical trials. Further clinical research into this area is needed.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.