Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35782570›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Potential Feed Additives as Antibiotic Alternatives in Broiler Production.

Habtamu Ayalew, Haijun Zhang, Jing Wang, Shugeng Wu, Kai Qiu, Guanghai Qi, Ayalsew Tekeste, Teketay Wassie, Demissie Chanie

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed
22.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 172 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Combination Effects ofBiology · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. DietaryFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  17. Alkaline autofermentation ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Habtamu AyalewLaboratory of Quality and Safety Risk Assessment for Animal Products on Feed Hazards (Beijing) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Haijun ZhangLaboratory of Quality and Safety Risk Assessment for Animal Products on Feed Hazards (Beijing) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Jing WangLaboratory of Quality and Safety Risk Assessment for Animal Products on Feed Hazards (Beijing) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Shugeng WuLaboratory of Quality and Safety Risk Assessment for Animal Products on Feed Hazards (Beijing) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Kai QiuLaboratory of Quality and Safety Risk Assessment for Animal Products on Feed Hazards (Beijing) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Guanghai QiLaboratory of Quality and Safety Risk Assessment for Animal Products on Feed Hazards (Beijing) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Ayalsew TekesteCollege of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Teketay WassieKey Laboratory of Agro-Ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, National Engineering Laboratory for Pollution Control and Waste Utilization in Livestock and Poultry Production, Hunan Provincial Engineering Research Center for Healthy Livestock and Poultry Production, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changsha, China.
Demissie ChanieCollege of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Feed Research Institute · CNMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs · CNUniversity of Gondar · ETChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CNInstitute of Subtropical Agriculture · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article aimed to describe the current use scenario, alternative feed additives, modes of action and ameliorative effects in broiler production. Alternative feed additives have promising importance in broiler production due to the ban on the use of certain antibiotics. The most used antibiotic alternatives in broiler production are phytogenics, organic acids, prebiotics, probiotics, enzymes, and their derivatives. Antibiotic alternatives have been reported to increase feed intake, stimulate digestion, improve feed efficiency, increase growth performance, and reduce the incidence of diseases by modulating the intestinal microbiota and immune system, inhibiting pathogens, and improving intestinal integrity. Simply, the gut microbiota is the target to raise the health benefits and growth-promoting effects of feed additives on broilers. Therefore, naturally available feed additives are promising antibiotic alternatives for broilers. Then, summarizing the category, mode of action, and ameliorative effects of potential antibiotic alternatives on broiler production may provide more informed decisions for broiler nutritionists, researchers, feed manufacturers, and producers.

Indexed as

antibiotic alternativesbroilerfeed additivesphytogenicprebioticprobiotic

Identifiers

PMID35782570
PMCPMC9247512
OpenAlexW4283079229

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.