Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30140751›Full record

ReviewAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui)2018

Non-antibiotic feed additives in diets for pigs: A review.

Yanhong Liu, Charmaine D Espinosa, Jerubella J Abelilla, Gloria A Casas, L Vanessa Lagos, Su A Lee, Woong B Kwon, John K Mathai, Diego M D L Navarro, Neil W Jaworski and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 172 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
172citing papers in PubMed
29.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

172 citing papers in PubMed, 320 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. AApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Phenotypic and Genomic Analysis of Swine-DerivedAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  8. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. ProbioticJournal of animal science and technology · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Effect ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

112 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yanhong LiuDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95817, USA.
Charmaine D EspinosaDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Jerubella J AbelillaDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Gloria A CasasDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
L Vanessa LagosDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Su A LeeDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Woong B KwonDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
John K MathaiDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Diego M D L NavarroDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Neil W JaworskiTrouw Nutrition, Boxmeer, 5831 JN, The Netherlands.
Hans H SteinDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USFood & Nutrition · NLUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of feed additives are marketed to assist in boosting the pigs' immune system, regulate gut microbiota, and reduce negative impacts of weaning and other environmental challenges. The most commonly used feed additives include acidifiers, zinc and copper, prebiotics, direct-fed microbials, yeast products, nucleotides, and plant extracts. Inclusion of pharmacological levels of zinc and copper, certain acidifiers, and several plant extracts have been reported to result in improved pig performance or improved immune function of pigs. It is also possible that use of prebiotics, direct-fed microbials, yeast, and nucleotides may have positive impacts on pig performance, but results have been less consistent and there is a need for more research in this area.

Indexed as

AcidifiersDirect-fed microbialsMineralsPigsPlant extractsPrebiotics

Identifiers

PMID30140751
PMCPMC6103469
OpenAlexW2790254840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.