Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31249838›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2019

Formaldehydes in Feed and Their Potential Interaction With the Poultry Gastrointestinal Tract Microbial Community-A Review.

Steven C Ricke, Kurt Richardson, Dana K Dittoe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects of a Feed Sanitizer in Sow Diets on Sow and Piglet Performance.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. ExposingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Feed Safety and the Development of Poultry Intestinal Microbiota.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors.

Steven C RickeDepartment of Food Science, Center of Food Safety, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
Kurt RichardsonAnitox Corporation, Lawrence, GA, United States.
Dana K DittoeDepartment of Food Science, Center of Food Safety, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As antibiotics continue to be phased out of livestock production, alternative feed amendments have received increased interest not only from a research standpoint but for commercial application. Most of the emphasis to date has focused on food safety aspects, particularly on lowering the incidence of foodborne pathogens in livestock. Several candidates are currently either being examined or are already being implemented in commercial settings. Among these candidates are chemical compounds such as formaldehyde. Formaldehyde has historically been used to inhibit

Indexed as

feedformaldehydegastrointestinal tractpoultrySalmonella

Identifiers

PMID31249838
PMCPMC6584747

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.