Table 4.

Standardized mean difference estimates of the effect of HGPs on beef quality outcomes

Variable	SMD	SE	95% CI	P-value	I 2, % (95% CI)	τ2
WBSFa, kg (KH)	0.299	0.027	0.246 to 0.352	0.001	47.3 (37–56)	0.046
WBSFa, kg (robust)	0.306	0.053	0.181 to 0.431	0.001		0.001
Juiciness (KH)	−0.038	0.075	−0.189 to 0.112	0.610	66.5 (56–75)	0.102
Juiciness (robust)	−0.115	0.137	−0.424 to 0.193	0.421		0.001
Tenderness (KH)	−0.094	0.101	−0.296 to 0.109	0.360	78.3 (72–83)	0.129
Tenderness (robust)	−0.223	0.219	−0.717 to 0.270	0.333		0.001
Flavor (KH)	0.077	0.074	−0.071 to 0.226	0.301	68.4 (57–77)	0.101
Flavor (robust)	−0.003	0.177	−0.426 to 0.418	0.983		0.001
Connective tissue (KH)	−0.060	0.207	−0.502 to 0.382	0.776	34.1 (0–64)	0.215
Meat quality 4 score (KH)	−0.490	0.107	−0.737 to −0.243	0.002	81.5 (66–90)	0.075

The estimates based on Knapp–Hartung methods (KH) provide a SMD, SE, and 95% CI of the SMD, significance (P-value), and measures of heterogeneity I² (with 95% CI) and tau² (τ²). Estimates based on robust regression methods (robust) provide a SMD, SE, and 95% CI of the SMD, P-value, and τ². Treatment and experiment numbers were too small to evaluate robust regression results for the amount of connective tissue or Meat Standards Australia meat quality 4 score.

^aWarner-Bratzler shear force.