Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31650414›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2020

Effects of the Probiotic Candidate E. faecalis-1, the Poulvac E. coli Vaccine, and their Combination on Growth Performance, Caecal Microbial Composition, Immune Response, and Protection against E. coli O78 Challenge in Broiler Chickens.

Reda Tarabees, Mohamed S El-Sayed, Awad A Shehata, Mohamed S Diab

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Probiotics as Potential Enhancers of Veterinary Vaccines.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026
    Review
  3. Avian PathogenicVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Avian PathogenicPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. What Is Wrong with Enterococcal Probiotics?Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2020
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Reda TarabeesDepartment of Bacteriology, Mycology, and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sadat City, Sadat City, Egypt. reda.tarabees@vet.usc.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2171-7978
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.
Mohamed S DiabDepartment of Animal Hygiene and Zoonoses, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, New Valley University, New Valley Governorate, Egypt.
University of Sadat City · EGLeipzig University of Applied Sciences · DESouth Valley University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study was performed on 180-day-old commercial Cobb chicks to assess the effects of the probiotic candidate Enterococcus faecalis-1, the Poulvac Escherichia coli vaccine, and their combination on growth parameters, intestinal microbial composition, immune response, and protection against challenge with the avian pathogen E. coli O78. The experimental groups were as follows: G1, basal diet; G2, basal diet and challenge with O78 at 28 days of growth; G3, basal diet, vaccination with Poulvac (1 and 15 days), and challenge with O78 at 28 days of growth; G4, basal diet, E. faecalis-1 supplementation for the first 3 days of growth, and challenge with O78 at 28 days of growth; G5, basal diet, E. faecalis-1 supplementation for the first 3 days of growth, vaccination with Poulvac (1 and 15 days), and challenge with O78 at 28 days of growth; G6, basal diet and E. faecalis-1 supplementation for the first 3 days of growth. The results showed that E. faecalis-1 in drinking water significantly improved the growth performance and immune response, increased the total Enterococcus counts, reduced the mortality, and decreased the visceral invasion by O78 in challenged broilers. While the effect of the Poulvac vaccine alone or with E. faecalis-1 was not significant compared with that of the E. faecalis-1 supplement, the vaccine improved the growth rate and decreased the mortality and visceral invasion by APEC O78 in challenged broilers. These results showed that E. faecalis-1 supplementation and routine vaccination with the Poulvac vaccine could improve the growth performance and immune response of broiler chickens and protect against challenge with APEC O78.

Indexed as

ChickensEscherichia coli InfectionsEscherichia coli VaccinesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeImmunityAnimalsPoultry DiseasesProbioticsEscherichia coli VaccinesAPEC O78E. faecalis-1Growth performanceImmune responseIntestinal microbiotaPoulvac E. coli

Identifiers

PMID31650414
OpenAlexW2981754151

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.