ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2025
Investigation of the Therapeutic Potential of Boric Acid in Enteritis-Induced Quails.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of boric acid added to feed and water on intestinal histopathology, immune parameters, and intestinal bacterial flora in experimentally enteritis-induced Japanese quails. Eighty-four quails were used in the study, which were divided into seven groups. The following groups were used in the study: control (G1), infected (G2), infected + antibiotic (G3), infected + boric acid added to feed (100 mg/kg) (G4), infected + boric acid added to feed (300 mg/kg) (G5), infected + boric acid added into water (100 mg/L) (G6) and infected + boric acid added into water (300 mg/L) (G7). Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA, and differences between groups were determined by Tukey's honestly significant difference test. The highest levels of white blood cells were found in the infection group, whereas the lowest levels were found in the control group (p < 0.05). Boric acid taken with water decreased the number of Enterobacteriaceae, Escherchia coli, and total mesophilic aerobic bacteria. However, these differences were not significant compared with the infection group (p > 0.05). Compared to the Infected group (G2), the most notable reductions in coliform counts were observed in the boric acid water 300 mg/L group (G7), which decreased from 3.29 to 2.90 log CFU/g (p < 0.01), and in the 100 mg/L group (G6), which showed a decrease to 2.93 log CFU/g (p < 0.01), In contrast, boric acid given in feed (G4 and G5) had no significant effect on any bacterial count compared to the infected group p > 0.05). Consequently, Effective results were observed when boric acid was added to drinking water, even with short-term (7 days) use. Boron derivatives could provide an effective alternative treatment option, especially in combating the growing antibiotic resistance.
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.