Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38929390›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Meta-Analyses of Methionine Source Concept Validation Trials in Broilers.

Andreas Lemme, Zeyang Li, Juliano Dorigam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Andreas LemmeEvonik Operations GmbH, 63457 Hanau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2483-1506
Zeyang LiEvonik Operations GmbH, 63457 Hanau, Germany.
Juliano DorigamEvonik Operations GmbH, 63457 Hanau, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the supplementation of methionine (Met) sources in broiler feeds has been established for several decades, there is debate on the nutritional value of the methionine hydroxy analogue of methionine (MHA) relative to DL-Met. Based on a recommendation suggesting that MHA is 65% as effective as DL-Met, many feeding trials have been conducted to challenge this recommendation. A literature search found 25 publications contributing 95 data sets suitable to compute Hedges' g effect sizes used in the meta-analysis. The data had very little heterogeneity of almost zero and the small effect sizes of the DL-Met results were not significantly different from MHA. Data were split in various subgroups, finally suggesting that neither broiler strain (Cobb 500, Ross 308), diet type (corn, wheat based), origin of data (peer-reviewed, grey literature), nor MHA product (MHA-free acid, MHA-calcium salt) impacted the outcome of the meta-analysis. Moreover, distinguishing data in groups with dietary Met+Cysteine (Cys) levels below, at, or above requirement demonstrated that there was no interaction with general Met+Cys supply. It is therefore concluded that MHA products can be replaced by DL-Met in a weight-to-weight ratio of 100:65 in any production condition without compromising broiler performance.

Indexed as

body weight gainbroilerfeed conversion ratiometa-analysismethionine sources

Identifiers

PMID38929390
PMCPMC11605227

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.