Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36289986›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Efficacy of

Charley Cull, Vijay K Singu, Brooke J Cull, Kelly F Lechtenberg, Raghavendra G Amachawadi, Jennifer S Schutz, Keith A Bryan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of Farm Management Practices onFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Antibiotic Alternatives and Next-Generation Therapeutics forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Stability ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  14. Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charley CullMidwest Veterinary Services, Inc., Oakland, NE 68045, USA.
Vijay K SinguCentral States Research Centre, Inc., Oakland, NE 68045, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4201-6751
Brooke J CullMidwest Veterinary Services, Inc., Oakland, NE 68045, USA.
Kelly F LechtenbergMidwest Veterinary Services, Inc., Oakland, NE 68045, USA.
Raghavendra G AmachawadiDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9689-1124
Jennifer S SchutzChr. Hansen, Inc., Milwaukee, WI 53214, USA.
Keith A BryanChr. Hansen, Inc., Milwaukee, WI 53214, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5640-4803
Kansas State University · US

Funding

Chris Hansen Inc.,Milwaukee, WI53214, USA MVS18044
6 · The paper itself

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

cattlefood-safetyhealthperformanceprobioticsSalmonella

Identifiers

PMID36289986
PMCPMC9598054
OpenAlexW4297982687

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.