Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34102481›Full record

ReviewPoultry science2021

Prebiotics and alternative poultry production.

Steven C Ricke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Poultry science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

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

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Limitation of the Lytic Effect of Bacteriophages onInternational journal of microbiology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

1 author.

Steven C RickeDepartment of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Electronic address: sricke@wisc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alternative poultry production systems continue to expand as markets for organic and naturally produced poultry meat and egg products increase. However, these production systems represent challenges associated with variable environmental conditions and exposure to foodborne pathogens. Consequently, there is a need to introduce feed additives that can support bird health and performance. There are several candidate feed additives with potential applications in alternative poultry production systems. Prebiotic compounds selectively stimulate the growth of beneficial gastrointestinal microorganisms leading to improved health of the host and limiting the establishment of foodborne pathogens. The shift in the gastrointestinal microbiota and modulation of fermentation can inhibit the establishment of foodborne pathogens such as Campylobacter and Salmonella. Both current and potential applications of prebiotics in alternative poultry production systems will be discussed in this review. Different sources and types of prebiotics that could be developed for alternative poultry production will also be explored.

Indexed as

PoultryPrebioticsAnimalsChickensGastrointestinal TractOvumPrebioticsalternative poultry productionfood safetygastrointestinal tractprebiotics

Identifiers

PMID34102481
PMCPMC8187256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.