Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30019032›Full record

ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2018

Growth-Promoting and Antioxidant Effects of Magnolia Bark Extract in Chickens Uninfected or Co-Infected with

Sungtaek Oh, Ujvala Deepthi Gadde, David Bravo, Erik P Lillehoj, Hyun S Lillehoj

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Oral Delivery ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Phenolic Compounds ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sungtaek OhAnimal Bioscience and Biotechnology Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD.
Ujvala Deepthi GaddeAnimal Bioscience and Biotechnology Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD.
David BravoPancosma SA, Geneva, Switzerland.
Erik P LillehojDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Hyun S LillehojAnimal Bioscience and Biotechnology Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center · USAgricultural Research Service · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnolia tree bark has been widely used in traditional Asian medicine. However, to our knowledge, no studies have been reported investigating the effects of dietary supplementation with magnolia bark extract in chickens.

objectiveWe tested the hypothesis that dietary supplementation of chickens with a

methodsA total of 168 chickens were fed from hatch either a standard diet or a diet supplemented with 0.33 mg or 0.56 mg

resultsGrowth performance increased between days 1 and 35 in uninfected and

conclusionMagnolia bark extract might be useful for future development of dietary strategies to improve poultry health, disease resistance, and productivity without the use of antibiotic growth promoters.

Indexed as

chickenClostridium perfringensEimeria maximamagnolianecrotic enteritis

Identifiers

PMID30019032
PMCPMC6041942
OpenAlexW2792676911

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.