Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30187428›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2019

Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Probiotic Mix and Prebiotic on Growth Performance, Cecal Microbiota Composition, and Protection Against Escherichia coli O78 in Broiler Chickens.

Reda Tarabees, Khaled M Gafar, Mohamed S El-Sayed, Awad A Shehata, Marwa Ahmed

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Avian PathogenicVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Avian PathogenicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  8. Effects ofVeterinary sciences · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Avian PathogenicPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  11. Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  14. Virulence Factors and Antimicrobial Resistance Profile ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Effect of Essential Oil of Thyme (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Avian PathogenicPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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

5 authors.

Reda TarabeesDepartment of Bacteriology, Mycology, and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sadat City, Sadat City, Egypt. reda.tarabees@vet.usc.edu.eg.
Khaled M GafarDepartment of Nutrition and Clinical Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sadat City, Sadat City, Egypt.
Mohamed S El-SayedDepartment of Bacteriology, Mycology, and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sadat City, Sadat City, Egypt.
Awad A ShehataDepartment of Birds and Rabbit Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sadat City, Sadat City, Egypt.
Marwa AhmedDirectorate of Veterinary Medicine, El Hamoul, Minufyia, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current study conducted to investigate the effects of a multi-strain commercial probiotic mix and prebiotic (isomaltooligosaccharide, IMO) on broiler performance parameters, cecal microbiota composition, and protection against challenge with avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) O78. For this purpose, 101-day-old Cobb chicks were randomly allocated into four experimental groups (G)-G01: basal diet, G02: basal diet and challenged with E. coli O78 at 28 days old, G03: basal diet with probiotic mix and challenged with E. coli O78 at 28 days old, and G04: basal diet with IMO and challenged with E. coli O78 at 28 days old. Results showed that weekly body weights in G03 were heavier (P < 0.05) than those of G01 and G02 at the fourth and fifth week. The body gain at the fourth and fifth week was higher (P < 0.05) in G03 than those of the other groups. The hot carcass weight (g) was significantly higher in broiler chickens kept in G03 and G04 compared with those in the control groups (G01 and G02). The probiotic mix and IMO significantly increased the total lactobacilli and total lactobacilli-enterococci populations in the ceca of treated broilers, respectively compared with those in the control groups. The treated broilers (G03 and G04) also showed lower mortality percentage and E. coli recovery rates the liver and spleen than those in G02. It was concluded that probiotic mix or IMO significantly improved the growth performance and modulated the intestinal microbiota of broiler chickens challenged with APEC O78.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsBacteriaCecumChickensDietary SupplementsEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsGastrointestinal MicrobiomePoultry DiseasesPrebioticsProbioticsPrebioticsBroilersEscherichia coli O78Intestinal microbiotaIsomaltooligosaccharideProbiotic

Identifiers

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.