Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36830391›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

The Contribution of Phytate-Degrading Enzymes to Chicken-Meat Production.

Peter H Selle, Shemil P Macelline, Peter V Chrystal, Sonia Yun Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Phytase in Pig Diets: Technical and Economic Evaluation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Attrition of amino acids in the life span of broiler chickens.Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Assessment of Recombinant β-Propeller Phytase of theJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter H SellePoultry Research Foundation within The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.
Shemil P MacellinePoultry Research Foundation within The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6771-3804
Peter V ChrystalPoultry Research Foundation within The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7421-5109
Sonia Yun LiuPoultry Research Foundation within The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4519-4905
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The contribution that exogenous phytases have made towards sustainable chicken-meat production over the past two decades has been unequivocally immense. Initially, their acceptance by the global industry was negligible, but today, exogenous phytases are routine additions to broiler diets, very often at elevated inclusion levels. The genesis of this remarkable development is based on the capacity of phytases to enhance phosphorus (P) utilization, thereby reducing P excretion. This was amplified by an expanding appreciation of the powerful anti-nutritive properties of the substrate, phytate (

Indexed as

amino acidsbroiler chickensphosphorusphytasephytateprotein

Identifiers

PMID36830391
PMCPMC9951704
OpenAlexW4319786737

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.