Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31707686›Full record

SynthesisTropical animal health and production2020

Meta-analysis of the influence of phytobiotic (pepper) supplementation in broiler chicken performance.

I P Ogbuewu, V M Okoro, C A Mbajiorgu

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Tropical animal health and production, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Meta-analytic effect ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in physiology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Overview of the Use of Probiotics in Poultry Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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

3 authors.

I P OgbuewuDepartment of Agriculture and Animal Health, University of South Africa, Florida Science Campus, Roodepoort, South Africa. ogbueip@unisa.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4895-7867
V M OkoroDepartment of Agriculture and Animal Health, University of South Africa, Florida Science Campus, Roodepoort, South Africa.
C A MbajiorguDepartment of Agriculture and Animal Health, University of South Africa, Florida Science Campus, Roodepoort, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the study is to use meta-analytical procedure to resolve uncertainty, identify knowledge gaps, and create new insights using published data on the phytobiotic effect of dietary pepper intervention on daily feed intake (DFI), average daily gain (ADG), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) in broiler chickens. The authors accessed AGORA, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases for primary studies published between 2011 and 2018 using combinations of different search terms. Fifteen studies were included to assess phytobiotic effect of pepper on DFI, FCR, and ADG in broiler chickens. Random-effects model (REM) was used to generate pooled effect estimates at 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analysis was performed using Open Meta-analyst for Ecology and Evolution (OpenMEE) software, while publication bias and source of heterogeneity were assessed using standard methods. Dietary pepper supplementation enhanced ADG (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.576, 95% CI 0.444 to 0.707, p < 0.001) and FCR (SMD = 0.325, 95% CI - 0.453 to - 0.196, p < 0.001) considering the presence of heterogeneity and publication bias. DFI (SMD = 0.052, 95%CI - 0.069 to 0.173, p = 0.403) was not significantly influenced by dietary pepper supplementation. Restricted subgroup analysis revealed that both black and red pepper increased ADG (p < 0.001). Broilers on black pepper intervention had better FCR (p = 0.002) than broilers on red pepper treatment. Higher (p < 0.05) DFI was obtained on broilers fed pepper-based diet at the rate of > 6 g/kg feed for 35 days. There was no association between DFI and explanatory variables (broiler strain used and number of broilers used), whereas study country influenced DFI (p < 0.001). Furthermore, there was an association between outcome of interests (ADG and FCR) and explanatory variables (supplementation level, study country, number of broilers used per treatment group, and broiler strain used). Broilers on dietary pepper intervention for 42 days had higher ADG (SMD = 62.2 g/bird/day, p < 0.001) than those on dietary pepper intervention for 56 days (SMD = 35.7 g/bird/day, p = 0.002). There is evidence of heterogeneity, and meta-regression analysis showed that study country, supplementation level, and broiler strain used explained most of the sources of heterogeneity. The results of the present study revealed the potential of dietary pepper intervention to improve production efficiency in broiler chickens. The current meta-analysis also set the steps for standardized experimental designs on the use of dietary pepper intervention in broiler feeding trials in the future.

Indexed as

ChickensPiper nigrumAnimal FeedAnimalsDietDietary SupplementsMaleBroilersGrowth performanceMeta-analysisPepperPhytogenics

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.