ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Efficacy of
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Farm Management Practices onFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effects of dietary supplementation with Bacillus coagulans on growth and immune performance, rumen microorganisms, and metabolites of yaks.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Antibiotic Alternatives and Next-Generation Therapeutics forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Investigating the effects of dietary and management modifications onMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Effect of Multi-Species Probiotic Supplementation on Fecal Microbiota in Pre-Weaned Holstein Dairy Calves in California.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Ruminant nutrition symposium: novel microbial solutions to optimize production efficiency in beef and dairy systems.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
- Article
- A multispecies bacterial-based direct-fed microbial alleviates Salmonella invasion and supports in vitro epithelial integrity.Journal of animal science · 2024Article
- Short communication: a novel multispecies bacteria-based direct-fed microbial supports in vitro gut barrier integrity challenged with a pathogen or pro-inflammatory cytokines.Journal of animal science · 2024Article
- Influence of BOVAMINE DEFEND Plus on growth performance, carcass characteristics, estimated dry matter digestibility, rumen fermentation characteristics, and immune function in finishing beef steers.Translational animal science · 2024Article
- The biogeography of gastrointestinal mucosal microbiota of beef cattle at harvest.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- The Effect of Probiotics in a Milk Replacer on Leukocyte Differential Counts, Phenotype, and Function in Neonatal Dairy Calves.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Stability ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Effects ofAnimals : 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Salmonella enterica, which causes typhoid fever, is one of the most prevalent food-borne pathogens. Salmonellosis in cattle can greatly impact a producer’s income due to treatment costs, decreased productivity of the herd, and mortality due to disease. Current methods of treatment and prevention for salmonellosis consist of antibiotics and vaccinations, but neither of these options are perfect. Probiotics, categorized as antibiotic alternatives, are living microorganisms that are added to animal feeds in appropriate quantities in order to benefit health and productivity in adult and newborn livestock. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that Lactobacillus animalis and Propionibacterium freudenreichii, when used as a direct-fed microbial, was effective in reducing the adverse effects of experimentally induced Salmonella infection in beef calves. We conducted a single site efficacy study with masking using a randomized design comprising two groups of ten beef calves allocated to two treatment groups (control and probiotic). Procedures such as determining general health scores and body weight and collecting fecal samples were carried out following the experimental challenge of calves with Salmonella Typhimurium. The presence of at least one CFU of bacteria in feces was significantly higher among animals in the control than in the probiotic group, which was higher on days 0 to 7 than on days 8 to 14 (p = 0.012). Animals in the control group had a significantly higher presence of abnormal diarrhea scores than animals in the probiotic group (p < 0.001). Most notably, other health benefits in probiotic-fed group calves were obviously better than those for control calves and further substantiates the potential economic and health benefits of feeding effective 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.