Evidence mapPaperPMID 40678049Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025

Comparative analysis of intestinal and reproductive function in older laying hens with three egg laying levels.

Taoyan Qiang, Keying Zhang, Qiufeng Zeng, Xuemei Ding, Shiping Bai, Yan Liu, Shengyu Xu, Yue Xuan, Shanshan Li, Jianping Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Taoyan QiangKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Keying ZhangKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Qiufeng ZengKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Xuemei DingKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Shiping BaiKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Yan LiuKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Shengyu XuKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Yue XuanKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Shanshan LiKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Jianping WangKey Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In production, older laying hens exhibit different levels of egg production, though these hens with the same genetic background, age, and feeding conditions. It is speculated that this may be due to varying intestinal function in laying hens with different egg production levels. To verify this speculation, this experiment aims to compare the intestinal function in laying hens with different egg production levels. Methods: After a 6-week pre-feeding with 1,000 hens, aged 60 weeks, we observed that the overall egg-laying rate for the flock was roughly 85%. Based on the data, a total of 120 healthy Lohmann Pink laying hens, aged 66 weeks, were selected for the experiment, which established three treatment groups, low egg-laying rate (LR, 76.89% ± 1.65%), medium egg-laying rate (MR, 84.96% ± 1.01%), and high egg-laying rate (HR, 93.12% ± 1.73%). Results: The results indicated that the HR group exhibited significantly enhanced egg production, egg mass, feed efficiency, and qualified egg rate over the 12-week period ( Discussion: These results suggest that hens with higher egg-laying rates demonstrated enhanced production performance and egg quality, which may be attributed to better intestine health (better barrier function, higher enrichment of

Indexed as

different egg-laying ratesegg qualityintestinal functionovarian functionproduction performance

Identifiers

PMID40678049
PMCPMC12269605

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.