Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34722694›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Multifarious Trajectories in Plant-Based Ethnoveterinary Knowledge in Northern and Southern Eastern Europe.

Giulia Mattalia, Olga Belichenko, Raivo Kalle, Valeria Kolosova, Natalia Kuznetsova, Julia Prakofjewa, Nataliya Stryamets, Andrea Pieroni, Gabriele Volpato, Renata Sõukand

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Antimicrobial Activity ofVeterinary sciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Giulia MattaliaDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy.
Olga BelichenkoDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy.
Raivo KalleUniversity of Gastronomic Sciences of Pollenzo, Bra, Italy.
Valeria KolosovaDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy.
Natalia KuznetsovaInstitute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Julia PrakofjewaDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy.
Nataliya StryametsDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy.
Andrea PieroniUniversity of Gastronomic Sciences of Pollenzo, Bra, Italy.
Gabriele VolpatoUniversity of Gastronomic Sciences of Pollenzo, Bra, Italy.
Renata SõukandDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy.
Ca' Foscari University of Venice · ITUniversity of Gastronomic Sciences · ITInstitute of Linguistic Studies · RUMuséum national d'Histoire naturelle · FRTishk International University · IQ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last century in the European context, animal production has been transformed by the dynamics of centralization and decentralization due to political and economic factors. These processes have influenced knowledge related to healing and ensuring the welfare of domestic animals. Therefore, our study aimed to document and compare current and past ethnoveterinary practices, and to identify trajectories in ethnoveterinary knowledge in study regions from both northern and southern Eastern Europe. In the summers of 2018 and 2019, we conducted 476 interviews, recording the use of 94 plant taxa, 67 of which were wild and 24 were cultivated. We documented 452 use reports, 24 of which were related to the improvement of the quality or quantity of meat and milk, while the other 428 involved ethnoveterinary practices for treating 10 domestic animal taxa. Cattle were the most mentioned target of ethnoveterinary treatments across all the study areas, representing about 70% of all use reports. Only four plant species were reported in five or more countries (

Indexed as

alternative and complementary veterinary medicineanimal husbandrylivestocklocal ecological knowledgeplant-based remedies

Identifiers

PMID34722694
PMCPMC8551763
OpenAlexW3207124017

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.