Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34229220›Full record

ReviewPoultry science2021

Centennial Review: History and husbandry recommendations for raising Pekin ducks in research or commercial production.

X Chen, D Shafer, M Sifri, M Lilburn, D Karcher, P Cherry, P Wakenell, S Fraley, M Turk, G S Fraley

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 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

X ChenMaple Leaf Farms, Inc., Leesburg, IN, USA.
D ShaferMaple Leaf Farms, Inc., Leesburg, IN, USA.
M SifriSifri Solutions, LLC, Quincy, IL, USA.
M LilburnOhio State University, Wooster, OH, USA.
D KarcherPurdue University, West Lafeyette, IN, USA.
P CherryConsultant, Lincoln, LN2 2NH United Kingdom.
P WakenellPurdue University, West Lafeyette, IN, USA.
S FraleyPurdue University, West Lafeyette, IN, USA.
M TurkDux Consulting, LLC, Milford, IN, USA.
G S FraleyPurdue University, West Lafeyette, IN, USA. Electronic address: gfraley@purdue.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By some accounts, ducks were domesticated between 400 and 10,000 yr ago and have been a growing portion of the poultry industry for decades. Ducks specifically, and waterfowl in general, have unique health, housing, nutrition and welfare concerns compared to their galliform counterparts. Although there have been many research publications in regards to health, nutrition, behavior, and welfare of ducks there have been very few reviews to provide an overview of these numerous studies, and only one text has attempted to review all aspects of the duck industry, from breeders to meat ducks. This review covers incubation, hatching, housing, welfare, nutrition, and euthanasia and highlights the needs for additional research at all levels of duck production. The purpose of this review is to provide guidelines to raise and house ducks for research as specifically related to industry practices.

Indexed as

ChickensDucksAnimalsMeatduckhousinglightingwelfarewellbeing

Identifiers

PMID34229220
PMCPMC8261006

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.