Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33413687›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2021

Overall assessment of antibiotic substitutes for pigs: a set of meta-analyses.

Bocheng Xu, Jie Fu, Luoyi Zhu, Zhi Li, Mingliang Jin, Yizhen Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2021. 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
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. The stems and leaves ofAnimal biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Dietary supplementation ofFrontiers in immunology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bocheng XuNational Engineering Laboratory of Biological Feed Safety and Pollution Prevention and Control, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed of Ministry of Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science of Zhejiang Province, Institute of Feed Science, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.
Jie FuNational Engineering Laboratory of Biological Feed Safety and Pollution Prevention and Control, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed of Ministry of Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science of Zhejiang Province, Institute of Feed Science, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.
Luoyi ZhuNational Engineering Laboratory of Biological Feed Safety and Pollution Prevention and Control, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed of Ministry of Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science of Zhejiang Province, Institute of Feed Science, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.
Zhi LiNational Engineering Laboratory of Biological Feed Safety and Pollution Prevention and Control, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed of Ministry of Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science of Zhejiang Province, Institute of Feed Science, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.
Mingliang JinNational Engineering Laboratory of Biological Feed Safety and Pollution Prevention and Control, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed of Ministry of Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science of Zhejiang Province, Institute of Feed Science, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.
Yizhen WangNational Engineering Laboratory of Biological Feed Safety and Pollution Prevention and Control, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed of Ministry of Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science of Zhejiang Province, Institute of Feed Science, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China. yzwang321@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8089-5964
Feed Research Institute · CNFeed Control (Norway) · NO

Funding

Major Science and Technology Special Fund of Zhejiang Province 2015C02022National Special Fund for Modern Industrial Technology System CARS-35the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China 3163000269
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibiotic growth promoters are widely used to improve weight gain. However, the abuse of antibiotics can have many negative effects on people. Developing alternatives to antibiotics is an urgent need in livestock production. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) to investigate the effects of feed additives as potential antibiotic substitutes (ASs) on bacteriostasis, growth performance, intestinal morphology and immunity. Furthermore, the primary, secondary, and tertiary ASs were defined by comparing their results with the results of antibiotics.

resultsAmong 16,309 identified studies, 37 were summarized to study the bacteriostasis effects of feed additives, and 89 were included in the meta-analysis and NMA (10,228 pigs). We summarized 268 associations of 57 interventions with 32 bacteria. The order of bacteriostasis effects was as follows: antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) ≈ antibiotics>organic acids>plant extracts>oligosaccharides. We detected associations of 11 feed additives and 11 outcomes. Compared with a basal diet, plant extract, AMPs, probiotics, microelements, organic acids, bacteriophages, lysozyme, zymin, and oligosaccharides significantly improved growth performance (P < 0.05); organic acids, probiotics, microelements, lysozyme, and AMPs remarkably increased the villus height:crypt depth ratio (V/C) (P < 0.05); and plant extracts, zymin, microelements, probiotics, and organic acids notably improved immunity (P < 0.05). The optimal AMP, bacteriophage, lysozyme, microelements, oligosaccharides, organic acids, plants, plant extracts, probiotics, and zymin doses were 0.100%, 0.150%, 0.012%, 0.010%, 0.050%, 0.750%, 0.20%, 0.040%, 0.180%, and 0.100%, respectively. Compared with antibiotics, all investigated feed additives exhibited no significant difference in effects on growth performance, IgG, and diarrhoea index/rate (P > 0.05); AMPs and microelements significantly increased V/C (P < 0.05); and zymin significantly improved lymphocyte levels (P < 0.05). Furthermore, linear weighting sum models were used to comprehensively estimate the overall impact of each feed additive on pig growth and health.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that AMPs and plant extracts can be used as primary ASs for weaned piglets and growing pigs, respectively. Bacteriophages, zymin, plants, probiotics, oligosaccharides, lysozyme, and microelements can be regarded as secondary ASs. Nucleotides and organic acids can be considered as tertiary ASs. Future studies should further assess the alternative effects of combinational feed additives.

Indexed as

Antibiotic substitutesDose-effect relationshipFeed additivesMeta-analysisNetwork meta-analysisPigs

Identifiers

PMID33413687
PMCPMC7792336
OpenAlexW3120457655

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.