Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28185614›Full record

ReviewMicrobiology spectrum2017

Current Status of the Preharvest Application of Pro- and Prebiotics to Farm Animals to Enhance the Microbial Safety of Animal Products.

Rolf D Joerger, Arpeeta Ganguly

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiology spectrum, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Translational animal science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Role of Bacteriophages for Optimized Health and Production of Poultry.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. The Impact of ProbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  8. Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Review
  9. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rolf D JoergerDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716.
Arpeeta GangulyDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716.
University of Delaware · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The selection of microorganisms that act as probiotics and feed additives that act as prebiotics is an ongoing research effort, but a sizable range of commercial pro-, pre- and synbiotic (combining pro- and prebiotics) products are already available and being used on farms. A survey of the composition of commercial products available in the United States revealed that Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, and Bacillus subtilis were the three most common species in probiotic products. Of the nearly 130 probiotic products (also called direct-fed microbials) for which information was available, about 50 also contained yeasts or molds. The focus on these particular bacteria and eukaryotes is due to long-standing ideas about the benefits of such strains, research data on effectiveness primarily in laboratory or research farm settings, and regulations that dictate which microorganisms or feed additives can be administered to farm animals. Of the direct-fed microbials, only six made a claim relating to food safety or competitive exclusion of pathogens. None of the approximately 50 prebiotic products mentioned food safety in their descriptions. The remainder emphasized enhancement of animal performance such as weight gain or overall animal health. The reason why so few products carry food safety-related claims is the difficulties in establishing unambiguous cause and effect relationships between the application of such products in varied and constantly changing farm environments and improved food safety of the end product.

Indexed as

Animals, DomesticAnimal HusbandryAnimalsFood SafetyHumansPrebioticsProbioticsUnited StatesPrebiotics

Identifiers

PMID28185614
PMCPMC11687445
OpenAlexW2605013271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.