ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022
Effect of the Inclusion of
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Role of Probiotics in Enhancing Animal Health: Mechanisms, Benefits, and Applications in Livestock and Companion Animals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Winning the battle of intestinal peace withFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Impact of Humectants on Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Jerky: A Meta-Analysis.Food science of animal resources · 2024Article
- Effects of dietary fiber and biotic supplementation on apparent total tract macronutrient digestibility and the fecal characteristics, metabolites, and microbiota of healthy adult dogs.Journal of animal science · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial Activity of Peptides Produced byAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis determined the effect of Bacillus spp. on growth performance of growing−finishing pigs and then assessed causes for the heterogeneity of responses detected using meta-regression. A database of 22 articles published from 2000 to 2020 was identified, and 9 articles fitted the selection criteria and were integrated in the final database. Statistical analysis was performed to analyze the effect size for ADG, average daily feed intake (ADFI), and F:G ratio using a standardized means difference (SMD) at a 95% confidence interval. A meta-regression analysis was used to investigate the cause of heterogeneity, using the individual SMD for each study assessment as the outcome and the associated SE as the measure of variance. Dietary Bacillus spp. supplementation had no effect on ADFI (SMD: −0.052, p = 0.138) and numerically increased ADG (SMD: 0.113, p = 0.081) and reduced the F:G ratio SMD: −0.127, p < 0.001). Meta-regression outcomes suggested that the number of animals per group was an essential component promoting heterogeneity in ADG. Overall, the inclusion of Bacillus spp. (median 486 mg/d) in growing−finishing pigs can increase ADG and can decrease the F:G ratio.
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.