2014
DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2014.931930
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probiotics and broiler growth performance: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Abstract: 1. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of probiotics on the growth performance of broilers. PubMed, Scopus and Scholar Google databases were searched in all languages from 1980 to 2012. The studies in the meta-analysis were only selected if they were randomised and controlled experiments using broilers without apparent disease and the results were published in peer-reviewed journals. 2. A total of 48 and 46 studies were included to assess probiotic effects on body weight gain (BWG) and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
23
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
23
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The results from the pooled analysis showed that ADG and FCR were significantly improved in birds receiving diets containing CBM588. The results from this meta‐analysis are similar to those reported for a study that used a quantitative meta‐analysis approach to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in broilers (Blajman et al., ). In that study, the authors reported a mean difference of 0.611 g/bird (95% CI 0.499–0.822 g/bird) between birds receiving probiotics and those fed control diets based on the results from 48 fully randomized and controlled studies available in the literature, and a mean difference of −0.281 g feed/g weight (95% CI −0.404 to −0.571) for FCR based on the results from 46 studies (Blajman et al., ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The results from the pooled analysis showed that ADG and FCR were significantly improved in birds receiving diets containing CBM588. The results from this meta‐analysis are similar to those reported for a study that used a quantitative meta‐analysis approach to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in broilers (Blajman et al., ). In that study, the authors reported a mean difference of 0.611 g/bird (95% CI 0.499–0.822 g/bird) between birds receiving probiotics and those fed control diets based on the results from 48 fully randomized and controlled studies available in the literature, and a mean difference of −0.281 g feed/g weight (95% CI −0.404 to −0.571) for FCR based on the results from 46 studies (Blajman et al., ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The obtained results also revealed that the effect of BL on blood cholesterol levels depends on the level of OCM inclusion. The influence of probiotics in reducing the total cholesterol can be attributed to its role in breaking down the total lipids and bile acids to avoid the re-synthesis of cholesterol [24,33]. Similar results were obtained when chicks fed diets supplemented with different probiotic strains [3,41].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…In this study, broilers' feed may elevate the body fat bulk, which may be the reason for the increasing abdominal fat level in broilers fed the control diet in comparison to OCM and/or BL. Probiotics are well known for their function in facilitating the gut absorption of essential nutrients to improve the growth and, accordingly, the general health status, which means reducing the accumulation of nutrients in the gut such as abdominal fat [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, so far, there are no reported studies evaluating the effect of P. xylanexedens, as a probiotic feed additive, on the broiler growth performance. Previous meta-analysis results have showed that the BWG and FCR were improved in birds that received probiotics in compare to the basal diet without additives (10). Studies with inulin and lactulose also showed pronounced effect on broiler performance by selectively stimulating the beneficial microorganisms (11,14,33).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%