Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30823381›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2019

Development and Function of the Intestinal Microbiome and Potential Implications for Pig Production.

Tanya L Nowland, Kate J Plush, Mary Barton, Roy N Kirkwood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing 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

68 citing papers in PubMed.

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

8 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

4 authors.

Tanya L NowlandSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy SA 5400, Australia. tanya.nowland@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-8812-5948
Kate J PlushSunPork Solutions, Shea-oak Log SA 5371, Australia. kate.plush@sunporkfarms.com.au.
Mary BartonSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia. mary.barton@unisa.edu.au.
Roy N KirkwoodSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy SA 5400, Australia. roy.kirkwood@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3294-8301

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intestinal microbiota has received a lot of attention in recent times due to its essential role in the immune system development and function. Recent work in humans has demonstrated that the first year of life is the most critical time period for microbiome development with perturbations during this time being proven to have long term health consequences. In this review, we describe the literature surrounding early life events in humans and mice that contribute to intestinal microbiota development and function, and compare this to piglets predominantly during their lactation period, which focuses on the impact lactation management practices may have on the intestinal microbiota. Although extensive research has been conducted in this area in humans and mice, little research exists in pigs during perceivably the most critical time period of development, which is the lactation period. The research reviewed outlines the importance of appropriate intestinal microbiota development. However, further research is needed in order to understand the full extent routine farm practices have on a piglet's intestinal microbiota.

Indexed as

intestinal microbiotamanagementneonatal environmentperformancepiglet

Identifiers

PMID30823381
PMCPMC6466301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.