Good Clinical Practice Research Group, The University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland, 4343, Australia; The University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland, 4343, Australia.
Good Clinical Practice Research Group, The University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland, 4343, Australia; The University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland, 4343, Australia.
Prev Vet Med. 2020 Oct;183:105147. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105147. Epub 2020 Sep 6.
The aims of this study were to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the types of probiotic formulations that are commercially available and to critically appraise the available evidence for the effectiveness of probiotics in improving the health and productivity of calves. Relevant papers were identified to answer the question: 'In calves aged between birth to one year, is the use of probiotics associated with changes in haematological or biochemical parameters, faecal bacteria counts, average daily live weight gain, dry matter intake, or feed conversion ratio?' The search of the literature yielded 67 studies that fit the primary screening criteria. Included studies were assessed for bias and confounding using a predefined risk assessment tool adapted from the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials and GRADE guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager and R. Random sequence generation was low in more than 59 % of studies. Risk of allocation concealment and performance bias were largely unclear in over 68 % of studies. Calves fed probiotics had increased average daily live weight gains (ADG) from birth to weaning (mean difference [MD] = 83.14 g/d 95 % CI = 58.36-107.91, P < 0.001) compared with calves on a control diet. Calf age reduced the level of heterogeneity of the effect of probiotics on ADG for calves between one to three weeks of age (τ = 73.15; I = 4%; P = 0.40) but not for calves older than three weeks of age (τ = 2892.91; I = 73 %; P < 0.001). Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was lower for calves on probiotics (MD = -0.13 kg of dry matter intake (DMI) to kg of live weight (LW) gain, 95 % CI = -0.17 to -0.09, P < 0.001), and the heterogeneity of effect was large in younger aged calves (τ = 0.05; I = 78 %; P = 0.03). The risk of bias regarding the methodology in the included studies was high. The quality of evidence for each outcome was categorised as moderate. There is sufficient data to support the effectiveness of probiotic use in some applications such as for the improvement of performance and productivity parameters of calves. However, the evidence is weak for other potential probiotic uses in calves such as improved health and reduced risk of disease. Therefore, the existing data are inconclusive and do not support the use of probiotics as an alternative to antimicrobials to improve calf health and productivity.
本研究的目的是对市售益生菌制剂的类型进行系统评价和荟萃分析,并批判性地评价益生菌在改善犊牛健康和生产力方面的有效性的现有证据。为了回答这个问题,我们检索了相关文献:“在出生至 1 岁的犊牛中,使用益生菌是否与血液学或生化参数、粪便细菌计数、平均日增重、干物质摄入量或饲料转化率的变化有关?”文献检索共得到 67 项符合初步筛选标准的研究。使用预先确定的风险评估工具(改编自 Cochrane 协作组评估随机试验偏倚的工具和 GRADE 指南)对纳入的研究进行偏倚和混杂因素评估。使用 Review Manager 和 R 进行荟萃分析。超过 59%的研究中随机序列生成的质量较低。超过 68%的研究中,分配隐藏和实施偏倚的风险很大程度上不明确。与对照组相比,喂食益生菌的犊牛从出生到断奶的平均日增重(ADG)更高(MD=83.14g/d,95%CI=58.36-107.91,P<0.001)。犊牛的年龄降低了益生菌对 1-3 周龄犊牛 ADG 的影响的异质性(τ=73.15;I=4%;P=0.40),但对 3 周龄以上犊牛的影响没有降低(τ=2892.91;I=73%;P<0.001)。益生菌组的饲料转化率(FCR)更低(MD=-0.13kg干物质摄入量(DMI)/kg活重(LW)增重,95%CI=-0.17 至-0.09,P<0.001),并且年轻的犊牛的效应异质性很大(τ=0.05;I=78%;P=0.03)。纳入研究的方法学偏倚风险较高。每个结果的证据质量被归类为中等。有足够的数据支持益生菌在某些应用中的有效性,例如提高犊牛的性能和生产力参数。然而,益生菌在其他潜在应用中的证据薄弱,例如改善犊牛的健康和降低疾病风险。因此,现有数据尚无定论,不能支持使用益生菌替代抗生素来改善犊牛的健康和生产力。