ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022
Effects of Starch Overload and Cecal Buffering on Fecal Microbiota of Horses.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comprehensive Review of the Equine Gut Microbiome in Health and Disease.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Starch Overload and Cecal Alkalinization: Impacts on the Intestinal Microbiota and Health of Horses.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Starch overload in horses causes gastrointestinal and metabolic disorders that are associated with microbiota changes. Therefore, we identified the fecal microbiota and hypothesized that intracecal injection of alkaline solution (buffer; Mg(OH)2 + Al(OH)3) could stabilize these microbiota and clinical changes in horses submitted to corn starch overload. Ten crossbred horses (females and geldings) were allocated to group I (water−saline and starch−buffer treatments) and group II (water−buffer and starch−saline treatments). Clinical signs, gross analysis of the feces, and fecal microbiota were evaluated through 72 h (T0; T8; T12; T24; T48; T72). Corn starch or water were administrated by nasogastric tube at T0, and the buffer injected into the cecum at T8 in starch−buffer and water−buffer treatments. Starch overload reduced the richness (p < 0.001) and diversity (p = 0.001) of the fecal microbiota. However, the starch−buffer treatment showed greater increase in amylolytic bacteria (Bifidobacterium 0.0% to 5.6%; Lactobacillus 0.1% to 7.4%; p < 0.05) and decrease in fibrolytic bacteria (Lachnospiraceae 10.2% to 5.0%; Ruminococcaceae 11.7% to 4.2%; p < 0.05) than starch−saline treatment. Additionally, animals that received starch−buffer treatment showed more signs of abdominal discomfort and lameness associated with dysbiosis (amylolytic r > 0.5; fribolytic r < 0.1; p < 0.05), showing that cecal infusion of buffer did not prevent, but intensified intestinal disturbances and the risk of laminitis.
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.