Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35757559›Full record

ReviewAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui)2022

Artificial gut and the applications in poultry: A review.

Nishchal K Sharma, Shu-Biao Wu, Natalie K Morgan, Tamsyn M Crowley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Lactobacilli and gut pH: features of correlation in model experiments.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Nishchal K SharmaSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Shu-Biao WuSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Natalie K MorganSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Tamsyn M CrowleyPoultry Hub Australia, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial gut models including both the gastric and intestinal phases have been used in poultry research for decades to predict the digestibility of nutrients, the efficacy of feed enzymes and additives, and caecal fermentation. However, the models used in the past are static and cannot be used to predict interactions between the feed, gut environment and microbiome. It is imperative that a standard artificial gut model for poultry is established, to enable these interactions to be examined without continual reliance on animals. To ensure the validity of an artificial model, it should be validated with in vivo studies. This review describes current practices in the use of artificial guts in research, their importance in poultry nutrition studies and highlights an opportunity to develop a dynamic gut model for poultry to reduce the number of in vivo experiments.

Indexed as

Artificial gutGastrointestinal tractIn vitro experimentPoultrySimulated gut

Identifiers

PMID35757559
PMCPMC9184286

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.