## 3 Results
### Stratification Meta-Analysis of MIC Values of Each Hop Compound
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Compound** & **Time (h)** & **Probiotic** & **MIC** & **95\% CI** & \
\begin{tabular}{l} **Number of** \\ **Studies** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Publication** \\ **Bias (\(p\)-Value)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Flavonoids** & 24 & No probiotic & 25.21 & 12.67–37.74 & 33 & 0.009 \\  & & Probiotic & 8.47 & 4.70–12.30 & 6 & 0.627 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 & No probiotic & 213.28 & 110.83–315.72 & 62 & 0.691 \\  & & Probiotic & 459.69 & 85.84–833.55 & 13 & 0.065 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Xanthohumol** & 24 & No probiotic & 24.75 & 10.17–39.33 & 28 & 0.015 \\  & & Probiotic & 8.49 & 4.70–12.27 & 6 & 0.627 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 & No probiotic & 51.52 & 44.42–56.11 & 40 & 0.021 \\  & & Probiotic & 39.43 & 27.79–51.06 & 7 & 0.001 \\ \hline
**Catechin** & 48 & No probiotic & 992.8 & 564.73–1420.9 & 10 & 0.323 \\  & & Probiotic & 950.0 & 428.99–1471.0 & 6 & 0.949 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Meta-analysis of MIC values of hop compounds and extracts stratified according to probiotic or non-probiotic microorganisms. Figure 7: Meta-analysis of MIC values for classes of hop compounds and extracts against food spoilage and non-food-spoilage microorganisms at different incubation time points. In addition, our meta-analysis revealed that hydroalcoholic extracts were more potent than CO\({}_{2}\) extracts in both 24 and 48 treatment time points (Figure 9). We should again strengthen the fact that experiments of compounds and extracts performed for different incubation time periods test different microorganisms and this could explain why MIC values in 48 h are not lower than MIC values in 24 h. Publication bias assessment revealed that  
Figure 8: Meta-analysis of MIC values for each hop compound against probiotic and non-probiotic microorganisms for 24 (**A**) and 48 (**B**) hours of incubation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Compound** & **Time (h)** & **Probiotic** & **MIC** & **95\% CI** & \
\begin{tabular}{l} **Number of** \\ **Studies** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Publication** \\ **Bias (\(p\)-Value)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Bitter acids** & 24 & No probiotic & 53.98 & 30.39–77.57 & 46 & 0.304 \\  & & Probiotic & 69.44 & 0.00–209.31 & 16 & 0.564 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 48 & No probiotic & 432.95 & 354.94–535.50 & 74 & 0.492 \\  & & Probiotic & 512.86 & 287.91–737.8 & 14 & 0.001 \\ \hline  & Humulone & 24 & No probiotic & 50.81 & 27.03–74.58 & 18 & 0.198 \\  & & Probiotic & 5.01 & 0.97–9.05 & 5 & 0.549 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 48 & No probiotic & 500.0 & 153.52–846.48 & 4 & N/A \\ \cline{2-7}  & Columbulone & 24 & No probiotic & 273.75 & 196.82–350.68 & 3 & N/A \\ \cline{2-7}  & Lupulone & 24 & No probiotic & 11.98 & 0.71–23.25 & 20 & 0.046 \\  & & Probiotic & 4.93 & 2.71–7.15 & 6 & 0.071 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 48 & No probiotic & 502.5 & 140.19–846.81 & 4 & N/A \\ \hline
**CO\({}_{2}\)-extract** & 24 & No probiotic & 326.46 & 14.29–638.63 & 22 & 0.206 \\  & & Probiotic & 502.5 & 0.00–1477.6 & 2 & N/A \\ \cline{2-7}  & 48 & No probiotic & 892.11 & 385.11–1399.1 & 38 & 0.108 \\ \hline
**Hydalcoholic** & & & & & & \\
**extract** & 24 & No probiotic & 217.62 & 120.96–314.27 & 26 & 0.143 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 48 & No probiotic & 180.11 & 124.26–235.97 & 35 & 0.00 \\  & & Probiotic & 149.33 & 115.7–182.97 & 18 & 0.00 \\ \hline
**Hydroacetonic** & 24 & No probiotic & 55.66 & 12.15–99.16 & 14 & 0.026 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 48 & Probiotic & 92.26 & 71.86–112.66 & 14 & 0.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} N/A: not applicable.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._it was more frequent in meta-analyses of studies assessing the MIC for 48 h of incubation (Table 5).