Logo image
Systematic review and meta-analysis of probiotic use on inflammatory biomarkers and disease prevention in cattle
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Systematic review and meta-analysis of probiotic use on inflammatory biomarkers and disease prevention in cattle

M.O. Barreto, M. Soust, R.J. Moore, T.W.J. Olchowy and J.I. Alawneh
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Vol.194, Art. 105433
2021
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

The aim of this study was to appraise the available evidence on the effectiveness of probiotic treatment on mature cattle immunity, inflammation, and disease prevention. A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to analyse studies that were eligible to answer the following research question: “in cattle of at least 6-months of age, is the use of probiotics associated with immunomodulatory and inflammatory responses, and clinical disease outcomes?” Our literature search yielded 25 studies that fit the inclusion criteria. From these studies, only 19 were suitable for inclusion in the meta-analysis due to data limitations and differences in study population characteristics. Included studies were assessed for bias using a risk assessment tool adapted from the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. GRADE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the body of evidence at the outcome level. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager and R. The overall quality of evidence at the outcome level was assessed as being very low. On average, the treatment effect on immunoglobulin G (IgG), serum amyloid A (SAA), haptoglobin (Hp) and β-hydroxybutyrate (BoHB) for cows receiving probiotics did not differ from control cows. Exposure to probiotics was not associated with reduced risk of reproductive disorders (pooled RR = 1.02 95 % CI = 0.81–1.27, P = 0.88). There is insufficient evidence to support any significant positive effects of probiotics on cattle immunity and disease prevention. This lack of consistent evidence could be due to dissimilarities in the design of the included studies such as differences in dosage, dose schedule, diet composition and/or physiological state of the host at the time of treatment.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#13 Climate Action

Source: InCites

Metrics

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Citation topics
3 Agriculture, Environment & Ecology
3.51 Dairy & Animal Sciences
3.51.84 Ruminant Nutrition
Web Of Science research areas
Veterinary Sciences
ESI research areas
Plant & Animal Science
Logo image