Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35017829›Full record

ReviewVeterinary world2021

Geovane Rosa de Oliveira, Carla de Andrade, Cristina Santos Sotomaior, Leandro Batista Costa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary world, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Geovane Rosa de OliveiraGraduate Program in Animal Science, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, PUCPR, Curitiba - PR, Brazil.
Carla de AndradeGraduate Program in Animal Science, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, PUCPR, Curitiba - PR, Brazil.
Cristina Santos SotomaiorGraduate Program in Animal Science, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, PUCPR, Curitiba - PR, Brazil.
Leandro Batista CostaGraduate Program in Animal Science, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, PUCPR, Curitiba - PR, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The production of cellulose nanofibers promotes the utilization of plant residues that are generated in agro-industries during food processing. The utilization of these plant by-products reduces environmental contamination. Cellulose nanofibers are used in several sectors, including the drug, food, and animal nutrition industries. Many sources of nanofibers used in animal diets can be used as potential fiber substitutes after being processed to improve efficiency. For instance, including nanometric particles of plant fibers (<100 nm) in animal feed may provide excellent physical properties such as high reactivity, a large surface area, and improved nutrient absorption from the diet. Nanotechnology improves the characteristics of fibers that are important for gastrointestinal transit and their utilization as energy sources and substrates for microbial fermentation in the digestive tract of animals. Nanofibers can improve the synthesis of volatile fatty acids and the blood lipid profile, with positive effects on the intestinal health of animals. Moreover,

Indexed as

animal performanceanimal productioncoproductfibersnanocellulose

Identifiers

PMID35017829
PMCPMC8743779

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.