Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26004794›Full record

ReviewMicrobes and environments2015

Effect of Probiotics/Prebiotics on Cattle Health and Productivity.

Yutaka Uyeno, Suguru Shigemori, Takeshi Shimosato

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbes and environments, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 168 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
168citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

168 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Dietary Supplementation ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  8. Impact of lactic acid bacteria andVeterinary and animal science · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Genomic and phenotypic analysis ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Effect of Different Prebiotic Saccharides onCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

108 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yutaka UyenoFaculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University.
Suguru Shigemori
Takeshi Shimosato

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probiotics/prebiotics have the ability to modulate the balance and activities of the gastrointestinal (GI) microbiota, and are, thus, considered beneficial to the host animal and have been used as functional foods. Numerous factors, such as dietary and management constraints, have been shown to markedly affect the structure and activities of gut microbial communities in livestock animals. Previous studies reported the potential of probiotics and prebiotics in animal nutrition; however, their efficacies often vary and are inconsistent, possibly, in part, because the dynamics of the GI community have not been taken into consideration. Under stressed conditions, direct-fed microbials may be used to reduce the risk or severity of scours caused by disruption of the normal intestinal environment. The observable benefits of prebiotics may also be minimal in generally healthy calves, in which the microbial community is relatively stable. However, probiotic yeast strains have been administered with the aim of improving rumen fermentation efficiency by modulating microbial fermentation pathways. This review mainly focused on the benefits of probiotics/prebiotics on the GI microbial ecosystem in ruminants, which is deeply involved in nutrition and health for the animal.

Indexed as

EfficiencyHealthAnimalsCattleGastrointestinal MicrobiomePrebioticsProbioticsTreatment OutcomePrebiotics

Identifiers

PMID26004794
PMCPMC4462921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.