Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32374780›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

An assessment of the impacts of litter treatments on the litter quality and broiler performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Taiani Dos Santos de Toledo, Aline Arassiana Piccini Roll, Fernando Rutz, Henrique Müller Dallmann, Marcos Antonio Dai Prá, Fábio Pereira Leivas Leite, Victor Fernando Büttow Roll

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pre-Harvest Non-TyphoidalAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  8. Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Recovery ofDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Taiani Dos Santos de ToledoDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agronomy Eliseu Maciel, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Aline Arassiana Piccini RollDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agronomy Eliseu Maciel, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Fernando RutzDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agronomy Eliseu Maciel, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Henrique Müller DallmannIbirubá Campus, Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul, Ibirubá, Brazil.
Marcos Antonio Dai PráBrasil Foods S/A. Av. Presidente Vargas, Marau, Brazil.
Fábio Pereira Leivas LeiteCDTec, Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Victor Fernando Büttow RollDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agronomy Eliseu Maciel, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4928-0299
Universidade Federal de Pelotas · BRBrf (Brazil) · BRInstituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio Grande do Sul · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe choice of the most suitable litter treatment should be based on scientific evidence. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of litter treatments on ammonia concentration, pH, moisture and pathogenic microbiota of the litter and their effects on body weight, feed intake, feed conversion and mortality of broilers.

methodsThe systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed (Medline), Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Scielo databases to retrieve articles published from January 1998 to august 2019. Means, standard deviations and sample sizes were extracted from each study. The response variables were analyzed using the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), (litter treatment minus control group). All variables were analyzed using random effects meta-analyses.

resultsSubgroup meta-analysis revealed that acidifiers reduce pH (P<0.001), moisture (P = 0.002) ammonia (P = 0.011) and pathogenic microbiota (P <0.001) of the litter and improves the weight gain (P = 0.019) and decreases the mortality rate of broilers (P<0.001) when compared with controls. Gypsum had a positive effect on ammonia reduction (P = 0.012) and improved feed conversion (P = 0.023). Alkalizing agents raise the pH (P = 0.035), worsen feed conversion (P<0.001), increase the mortality rate (P <0.001), decrease the moisture content (P<0.001) and reduce the pathogenic microbiota of the litter (P<0.001) once compared to controls. Superphosphate and adsorbents reduce, respectively, pH (P<0.001) and moisture (P = 0.007) of the litter compared to control groups.

conclusionNone of the litter treatments influenced the feed intake of broilers. Meta-analyses of the selected studies showed positive and significant effects of the litter treatments on broiler performance and litter quality when compared with controls. Alkalizing was associated with worse feed conversion and high mortality of broilers.

Indexed as

Housing, AnimalAcidsAlkaliesAmmoniaAnimal FeedAnimal HusbandryAnimalsBird DiseasesBody WeightChickensFeeding BehaviorHumidityHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMicrobiotaWaste ManagementWeight GainAcidsAlkaliesAmmonia

Identifiers

PMID32374780
PMCPMC7202646
OpenAlexW3023290857

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.