Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31035345›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2019

A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Insects in Feed on Poultry Growth Performances.

Nassim Moula, Johann Detilleux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Effects of Feeding Housefly (Veterinary sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Effect of housefly (Veterinary world · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Nassim MoulaFundamental and Applied Research for Animals and Health, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium. Nassim.Moula@uliege.be.
Johann DetilleuxFundamental and Applied Research for Animals and Health, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium. jdetilleux@uliege.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated and summarized results from studies evaluating the effects of feeding poultry with insects on their growth performances. After a systematic review of studies published since 2000, two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of each one based on predefined inclusion criteria. We extracted information on the study design, insects, avian species, and growth performances, i.e., average daily gain, feed intake, and feed conversion ratio. Next, we estimated pooled differences between performances of poultry fed a diet with vs. without insects through random-effects meta-analysis models. Additionally, these models evaluated the effects of potential sources of heterogeneity across studies. Of the 75 studies reviewed, 41 met the inclusion criteria and included 174 trials. With respect to diets without insects, pooled differences in growth performances were statistically not different from the null, but heterogeneity was marked across studies. Average daily gain decreased with increasing inclusion rates of insects, going below the null for rates of 10% and more. Grasshoppers were negatively associated with the average daily gain and positively associated with feed intake. The country of publication was another source of heterogeneity across publications. Overall, our results show insects should substitute only partially conventional protein sources and not be grasshoppers to guarantee the appropriate growth of birds.

Indexed as

alternative protein sourceinsects in feedmeta-analysispoultry growth

Identifiers

PMID31035345
PMCPMC6562956

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.