ArticleOpen veterinary journal2024
Effects of the putative probiotics
Article in Open veterinary journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preliminary microbiome characterization of shrimp gut and pond water in Egyptian aquaculture farms: Implications for pathogen dynamics and management practices.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Dietary Glycine and Methyl Donors Remodel Gut Microbiota to Enhance Collagen Synthesis in Sea Cucumber (Biology · 2025Article
- Response mechanism of Saccharomyces cerevisiae under benzoic acid stress in ethanol fermentation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A commercially significant species in the aquaculture sector globally, particularly in Egypt, is Aim: The experiment's objective was to ascertain how Sanolife PRO-F impacted the growth, water quality, immunological response, and intestinal morphometry of Methods: In the current investigation, which lasted 12 weeks, Sanolife PRO-F was administered to shrimp post-larvae at diet doses of 0 (control), 1 (group one), 2 (group two), and 3 (group three) g/kg diet, respectively. Each experimental group had three repetitions. Results: In the current study, shrimp fed on probiotic-treated diets showed a considerable improvement in growth performance measures and survival rate, and the nonspecific immune response was also enhanced. Shrimp fed probiotic diets had longer and more intestinal villi overall. Shrimp fed on the G2 and G3 diets showed no appreciable differences in growth or intestinal morphology. With the G2 and G3 diet, the water had lower concentrations of nitrite and ammonia. Conclusion: The study's findings indicate that Sanolife PRO-F treatment at 2-3 g/kg feed promotes the growth of shrimp, immunological response, gut health and function, and water quality.
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.