ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Effects of Pecking Materials Provision and Edibility on Productivity Indicators in Laying Hens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Feather pecking and cannibalism arise when laying hens' foraging needs are not satisfied, reducing productivity, increasing stress, and elevating mortality. Providing pecking materials is a welfare measure that redirects pecking from conspecifics to the provided material, and this meta-analysis evaluated its effects on productivity and mortality in laying hens. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect identified 18 articles comprising 24 experiments that examined the effects of pecking materials on body weight (BW), egg production rate (EPR), egg mass (EM), average daily feed intake (ADFI), egg weight (EW), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and mortality (MORT). Risk of bias, assessed using the SYRCLE tool, was generally low to unclear across most domains, though blinding of caregivers was rated as high risk in all studies. A random-effects model was used to pool standardized mean differences (SMD) across studies, and subgroup analysis based on material edibility was conducted through meta-ANOVA to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Overall, pecking materials provision decreased both BW (SMD = -0.59; 95% CI: [-1.03, -0.14]) and MORT (SMD = -1.10; 95% CI: [-1.79, -0.42]). Subgroup analysis revealed contrasting BW patterns by edibility (edible: decreased; non-edible: increased), whereas MORT decreased consistently regardless of edibility. Publication bias was detected for EPR and ADFI, but trim-and-fill adjustment did not alter the overall conclusions. These findings indicate that pecking materials provision is a useful strategy that reduces mortality without compromising productivity, and suggest that material edibility may partly explain the inconsistent results reported in previous studies. However, given the substantial heterogeneity and unclear risk of bias observed in several domains, further studies incorporating a broader range of material types and rearing conditions are needed to clarify the sources of variability.
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.