ArticleVeterinary world2022
Effect of probiotic and
Article in Veterinary world, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peking x white Mojosari crossbred duck eggs production, quality, and hatchability with probiotic supplementation.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Article
- Influence of feed supplementation with probiotic and organic form of zinc on functional status of broiler chickens.Open veterinary journal · 2024Article
- Supplementation ofVeterinary world · 2024Article
- Article
- Alleviation of Catching and Crating Stress by Dietary Supplementation ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Antibiotics have been used as growth promoters in poultry. However, continuous and long-term antibiotics can cause resistance, suppress the immune system, and accumulate toxic residue. To overcome these problems, feed additives that are safe for livestock and health for humans are needed, including probiotics. Therefore, the study aimed to determine the effect of probiotics ( Materials and Methods: This study used 48 Peking ducks, divided into four treatments and six replications. Each replication consisted of two ducks. The treatments were as follows: T0=control, T1=4 mL containing 1.2×10 Results: There was no significant difference (p>0.05) between body weight, feed intake, and mortality treatments. By contrast, control and treatment showed a significant difference (p<0.05) on feed efficiency, FCR, body weight gain, carcass weight, and percentage of carcass weight. Results of body weight gain statistics showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between T0 and T1, but T0 and T1 showed a significant difference with T2 and T3. The results of the feed efficiency statistic showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between T0, T1, and T2, but there was a significant difference between T0, T1, and T3. Feed efficiency at T2 showed no significant difference with T3, T1, and T0. The results of the FCR statistic showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between T0, T1, and T2, but there was a significant difference between T0, T1, and T3. FCR at T2 showed no significant difference with T3, T1, and T0. The carcass weight statistic showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between T0, T1, and T3, but there was a significant difference between T0 and T2. T2 showed no significant difference with T1 and T3. The carcass percentage statistic showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between T0 and T1, but T0 and T1 showed a significant difference (p<0.05) with T2 and T3. Conclusion: Based on the study results, it can be concluded that the use of a combination of probiotics (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.