ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Influence of Probiotic Strains
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of lactic acid bacteria andVeterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- Freeze-dried Lactobacillus spp. improved average daily liveweight gain and reduced methane intensity in growing lambs.Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2026Article
- Effects of Ligilactobacillus agilis W70 and dietary protein levels on feed efficiency, nitrogen metabolism, and rumen microbiota of lactating dairy cows.Animal microbiome · 2026Article
- Robust Goat-DerivedVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Metagenomic Applications to Herbivore Gut Microbiomes: A Comprehensive Review of Microbial Diversity and Host Interactions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial and Mycotoxin Reducing Properties of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Influence on Blood and Feces Parameters of Newborn Calves.Animals : 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
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to monitor the effect of Bifidobacterium bifidum (BB) and the combination of Lactobacillus sporogenes, Enterococcus faecium, and Bifidobacterium bifidum (LEB) on the health status and weight gain of calves, and the utilisation of nitrogenous substances. The experiment was performed in the period from April 2020 to September 2020. A total of 90 Holstein heifers, which were one to 56 days old, were used as experimental animals. Differences in live weight gain were significant if we compared the LEB vs. BB group and the LEB vs. C, the control group (86.23 ± 5.49 kg vs. 84.72 ± 6.22 kg, p < 0.05; 86.23 ± 5.49 kg vs. 82.86 ± 5.35 kg, p < 0.01). Considering the live weight gain, group BB was heavier than group C only (84.72 ± 6.22 kg vs. 82.86 ± 5.35 kg, p < 0.05). An effect on reducing the incidence and duration of diarrheal diseases was not demonstrated in this study (p = 0.1957). The administration of feed additives had no statistically significant effect on the amount of N excreted in the feces. The values of hematological and biochemical parameters were unaffected except for the first sampling of urea. Other blood parameters were not affected by the addition of probiotic feed additives. The bacterial populations in the feces 5 days and 56 days after birth were not affected by the inclusion of feed additives.
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.