Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29955220›Full record

ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2018

Impact of Prebiotics on Poultry Production and Food Safety.

Steven C Ricke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

1 author.

Steven C RickeCenter of Food Safety, Department of Food Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the phasing out of routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture, interest has grown for the need to develop feed supplements that augment commercial poultry performance and provide food safety benefits. From a food safety perspective, alternative feed supplements can be broadly categorized as either agents which reduce or eliminate already colonized foodborne pathogens or prevent colonization of incoming pathogens. Prebiotics are considered preventative agents since they select for gastrointestinal microbiota which not only benefits the host but can serve as a barrier to pathogen colonization. In poultry, prebiotics can elicit both indirect effects on the bird by shifting the composition and fermentation patterns of the gastrointestinal microbiota or directly by influencing host systems such as immune responses. Generation of short chain fatty acids is believed to be a primary inhibitory mechanism against pathogens when prebiotics are fermented by gastrointestinal bacteria, but other mechanisms such as interference with attachment can occur as well. While most of the impact of the prebiotic is believed to occur in the lower parts of the bird gastrointestinal tract, particularly the ceca, it is possible that some microbial hydrolysis could occur in upper sections such as the crop. Development of next generation sequencing has increased the resolution of identifying gastrointestinal organisms that are involved in metabolism of prebiotics either directly or indirectly. Novel sources of non-digestible oligosaccharides such as cereal grain brans are being explored for potential use in poultry to limit

Indexed as

Food SafetyPrebioticsAnimalsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGastrointestinal TractPoultryPrebioticsavian microbiomebranPoultry productionprebioticsSalmonella

Identifiers

PMID29955220
PMCPMC6020725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.