Cambridge University Press



Supplementary Table 1: Study characteristics for 97 trials from 76 publications evaluating the impact of litter management on mortality, morbidity, and condemnations at slaughter in broiler chickens. Bolded outcomes represent those included in the network meta-analysis for mortality or for the presence or absence of footpad lesions.StudyCountrySettingMonth and Year conducted# farmsIntervention typeOutcomesAbreu et al., 2011NRNRAug.- Dec. 20022Flooring typeMortalityAggarwal et al., 1978NRNRNR1Fresh versus usedMortalityAkpobome and Fanguy, 1992*NRUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Flooring typeMortality, Breast blisters (binary)Akpobome and Fanguy, 1992*NRUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Flooring typeMortality. Breast blisters (binary)Al-Homidan et al., 2017NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityAli et al, 2000EgyptUniversity/research flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortalityAnisuzzaman and Chowdhury, 1996NRNRNR1Litter typeMortality, Breast blisters (binary)Atapattu and Wickramasinghe, 2007NRUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityAtencio et al., 2010NRUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityAvdalovic et al., 2017SerbiaUniversity/research flock(s)Sept. – Nov. 20151Litter typeMortality, footpad lesion scores**, Footpad lesions (binary)Balogun et al., 1999NRNRNR1Fresh versus usedMortalityBjedov et al., 2013SerbiaUniversity/research flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Brown et al., 1977*USAUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter depthMortality, Breast blisters (binary)Brown et al., 1977*USAUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter depthMortality, Breast blisters (binary)Brown et al., 1977*USAUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter depthMortality, Breast blisters (binary)Cavusoglu et al., 2018TurkeyUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Flooring typeFootpad lesions (binary)Cengiz et al., 2013NRNRNR1Flooring typeMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Choi and Moore, 2008USAUniversity/research flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortalityChuppava et al., 2018NRNRNR3Flooring typeMortality, Footpad lesion scoresDavis et al., 2015*NRUniversity/research flock(s)Oct. – Dec., NR1Litter typeFootpad lesion scoresDavis et al., 2015*NRUniversity/research flock(s)Jan. - March 20151Litter typeFootpad lesion scoresDavis et al., 2015*NRUniversity/research flock(s)March 2015 1Litter typeFootpad lesion scoresDo et al., 2005*NRCommercial flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortalityDo et al., 2005*NRCommercial flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortalityDo et al., 2005*NRCommercial flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortalityDo et al., 2005*NRCommercial flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortalityDo et al., 2005*NRCommercial flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortalityDo et al., 2005*NRCommercial flock(s)NR1AdditiveMortalityGarces et al., 2017MozambiqueUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityGarces-Gudino et al., 2018EcuadorNRNR3Fresh versus usedMortalityGarcia et al., 2012*BrazilUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeBreast blisters (binary), Bruises (binary), Footpad lesions (binary)Garcia et al., 2012*BrazilUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeBreast blisters (binary), Bruises (binary), Footpad lesions (binary)Garrido et al., 2004NorwayNRNR1AdditiveMortality, Condemnations at slaughterGholap et al., 2012NRCommercial flock(s)NR3AdditiveFootpad lesions (binary)Grimes et al., 2006NRUniversity/research flock(s)NR1AdditiveHock lesion scores, Footpad lesion scoresHafeez et al., 2009PakistanUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityHaque and Chowdhury, 1994NRNRNR1Litter depthMortalityHomidan et al., 1997NRNRNR1Litter depthMortalityHuff et al., 1984NRNRNR1AdditiveMortalityHussain et al., 1996PakistanUniversity/research flock(s)NR, 19921Litter typeMortalityJones and Hagler, 1982NRCommercial flock(s)NR1Fresh versus usedMortality, Condemnations at slaughterKheravii et al., 2017AustraliaCommercial flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityKhosravinia, 2006NRCommercial flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityLi et al., 2013USAUniversity/research flock(s)NR2AdditiveFootpad lesion scoresLi et al., 2013USAUniversity/research flock(s)Aug. - May 2011-20123AdditiveMortalityLiang et al., 2014USAUniversity/research flock(s)May - April 2011-20123WindrowingFootpad lesion scoresLien et al., 1992*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortality, Breast blisters (binary), Leg lesions (binary)Lien et al., 1992*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortality, Breast blisters (binary), Leg lesions (binary)Lien et al., 2008USANRSept. – Nov., NR1Litter typeMortalityMalone and Chaloupka, 1983*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityMalone and Chaloupka, 1983*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityMalone and Chaloupka, 1983*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityMalone and Gedamu, 1995NRCommercial flock(s)NR1Litter type, Fresh versus usedMortality, Breast lesion scoresMalone et al., 1990*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortality, Breast lesion scores Malone et al., 1990*NRNRNR1Litter type, Fresh versus usedMortality, Breast lesion scoresMaurice et al., 1998NRCommercial flock(s)April-May, NR1AdditiveMortality, Leg lesion scoresMcGovern et al., 2000NRNRNR2AdditiveMortalityMeluzzi et al., 2008ItalyUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityMendes et al., 2011BrazilNRSept.–Nov. 20081Litter typeMortality, Footpad lesion scoresMihai et al., 2013RomaniaUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityMihai et al., 2013RomaniaUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Mizu et al., 1998NRNRNR1Litter depthMortalityNowaczewski et al., 2011PolandCommercial flock(s)NR2Litter typeMortality, Footpad lesion scores, Footpad lesions (binary)Nunes et al., 2012NRUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Fresh versus usedMortalityOnbasilar et al., 2013TurkeyNRNR1Litter typeBreast blisters (binary)Petek et al., 2010NRUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter depthMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Petek et al., 2014NRUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalityPopescu et al., 2018RomaniaCommercial flock(s)NR2Litter typeMortality, Breast blisters (binary), Hock burn (binary), Footpad lesions (binary)Purswell et al., 2013NRUniversity/research flock(s)Sept. 20113AdditiveMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Ramadan and El-Khloya, 2017NRNRNR1Litter typeMortality, Hock lesion scores, Footpad lesion scoresRitz et al., 2016NRNRNR1AdditiveMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Sahoo et al., 2017NRNRDec. 2012 – Jan. 20131AdditiveMortality, Breast blisters (binary), Footpad lesions (binary)Santiago et al., 2006USACommercial flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortalitySarica and Cam, 2000NRCommercial flock(s)NR1Litter typeBreast lesion scores, Breast blisters (binary)Senaratna et al., 2007NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityShakila and Naidu, 1998NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityShao et al., 2015ChinaUniversity/research flock(s)Oct. – Nov. 20131Litter depthMortality, Breast lesion scores, Hock lesion scores, Footpad lesion scores, Gait scoreShepherd et al., 2017*NRNRNR1Litter depth, Fresh versus usedMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Shepherd et al., 2017*NRNRNR1Litter depthMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Shepherd et al., 2017*NRNRNR1Litter depthMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Sirri et al., 2007NRNRMay - June, NR1Litter typeMortality, Footpad lesion scoresSkrbic et al., 2015NRNRNR1Litter typeHock lesion scores, Footpad lesion scores, Hock burn (binary), Footpad lesions (binary)Stoj?i? et al., 2016SerbiaUniversity/research flock(s)NR1AdditiveFootpad lesions (binary)Swain and Sundaram, 2000NRNRJune - July, NR1Litter typeMortality, Breast blisters (binary)Teixeira et al., 2015*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityTeixeira et al., 2015*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityTeixeira et al., 2015*NRNRNR1Litter typeMortalityvan Harn et al., 2012NetherlandsUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortality, Footpad lesion scoresVargas-Galicia et al., 2017MexicoUniversity/research flock(s)NR1AdditiveAbnormal gait, Footpad lesions (binary)Vieira and Moran, 1999USAUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Fresh versus usedMortality, Breast blisters (binary)Villagrá, et al., 2011SpainUniversity/research flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortality, Breast lesion scores, Hock lesion scores, Footpad lesion scores, Gait scoreWatts et al., 2017*USAUniversity/research flock(s)March - Aug. 20171Litter typeMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Watts et al., 2017*USAUniversity/research flock(s)March - Aug., NR1Litter typeMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Watts et al., 2017*USAUniversity/research flock(s)March - Aug., NR1Litter typeMortality, Footpad lesions (binary)Willis et al., 1997NRCommercial flock(s)NR4Litter typeMortality, Breast lesion scoresWyatt and Goodman, 1992NRCommercial flock(s)NR1Litter typeMortality, Breast blisters (binary), Bruises (binary), Scabs (binary), Xu et al., 2015NRCommercial flock(s)NR1Fresh versus usedMortalitySupplementary Table 2. Risk ratio comparisons for mortality as an outcome for litter management interventions in a network meta-analysis of litter management in broiler chickens. The upper right hand section of the table represents the risk ratio between the numerator (upper left treatment) and denominator (lower right treatment). The lower left section of the table represents the 95% credibility interval for the comparison, with the rows and columns reversed. Supplementary Table 3. Mean ranking of litter management interventions for mortality as an outcome from a Bayesian network meta-analysis of litter management in broiler chickens. Mean rank, standard deviation and quartile rankings are shown.Intervention armMean rankSD2.50%50%97.50%Kenaf core11.666.4831028Gypsum13.687.2531231Sugarcane14.0410.2221136Sodium bisulphate15.615.8461528Paper17.716.6861731Aluminum19.148.7251835Coir dust20.2815.0811941Silage maize20.767.4772134Husks20.914.77122130Shavings21.233.27152128Sand21.426.06102233Grass22.247.1882334No bedding23.218.2472436Peat moss25.9612.5423141Straw27.754192835Leaves30.346.71133239Corn cobs36.534.32243841Supplementary Table 4: Results of the indirect comparisons for the consistency assumption for mortality as an outcome in a network meta-analysis of litter management options in broiler chickens. Columns represent posterior means (d) and standard deviations (sd) of the log-odds ratio of vaccine effects calculated using direct evidence (d), all evidence (MTC), and indirect evidence (rest); w and sd_w represent the inconsistency estimate and its standard parisond_dirsd_dird_MTCsd_MTCd_restsd_restwsd_wp_valueGRASS vs SH_GR-0.013.51-0.051.11-0.051.170.053.70.99GYPS vs SH_GY0.072.880.150.210.150.21-0.082.880.98HU_PA vs HUSK0.212.990.270.740.270.76-0.063.090.99HUSK vs GRASS-0.142.90.030.170.030.17-0.172.910.95HUSK vs ALUM0.031.37-0.050.25-0.050.260.081.390.96HUSK vs SAND-0.661.860.010.140.020.14-0.681.870.72HUSK vs SH_SA0.172.85-0.10.23-0.10.230.272.860.93HUSK vs AL_CA0.021.360.030.270.030.27-0.011.381HUSK vs STR-0.491.160.170.120.180.12-0.671.160.56HUSK vs COIR0.013.09-0.010.88-0.020.920.033.220.99K vs HUSK-0.052.980.050.350.050.35-0.130.97KENAF vs KE_SH0.372.890.480.270.480.27-0.112.90.97SHAV vs FL_H-0.432.91-0.440.3-0.440.30.012.921SHAV vs FL_L-0.683.01-0.760.88-0.760.920.083.150.98SHAV vs GRASS0.111.710.030.20.030.20.091.720.96SHAV vs GYPS-0.070.83-0.220.23-0.230.240.170.860.85SHAV vs HUSK0.080.2100.13-0.050.150.120.260.64SHAV vs KE_SH0.282.890.180.290.180.290.12.90.97SHAV vs KENAF-0.361.45-0.30.23-0.30.23-0.061.470.97SHAV vs LA0.232.860.240.240.240.24-0.012.871SHAV vs ALUM03.2-0.050.29-0.050.290.053.210.99SHAV vs LEAF0.460.980.320.270.310.280.151.020.88SHAV vs NO_BED0.040.810.060.240.060.25-0.020.850.98SHAV vs PAPER-0.130.25-0.090.18-0.050.25-0.090.360.81SHAV vs PEAT0.212.930.260.630.270.65-0.0530.99SHAV vs SA0.142.870.160.380.160.38-0.022.890.99SHAV vs SAND0.120.450.010.1500.160.120.470.79SHAV vs SB-0.151.24-0.150.16-0.150.16-0.011.251SHAV vs CA_SH-0.160.95-0.120.33-0.120.35-0.051.020.96SHAV vs SH_GR-0.073.19-0.021.19-0.011.29-0.063.440.99SHAV vs SH_GY0.110.62-0.070.17-0.090.180.20.650.76SHAV vs SH_LE0.752.96-0.040.57-0.070.580.813.020.79SHAV vs SH_SA-0.012.87-0.10.27-0.10.270.12.890.97SHAV vs SIL-0.092.9-0.010.21-0.010.21-0.082.910.98SHAV vs ST_HU_SH-0.011.510.040.350.050.36-0.061.550.97SHAV vs CANE-0.221.09-0.270.42-0.280.450.061.180.96SHAV vs STR0.110.110.170.110.490.28-0.380.30.21SHAV vs ZO0.033.12-0.061-0.071.060.13.290.97SHAV vs CELL-0.312.85-0.260.37-0.260.38-0.052.870.99SHAV vs COB0.592.890.780.370.780.37-0.192.910.95SHAV vs COIR-0.013.04-0.020.94-0.020.990.013.191SHAV vs FL_B-0.432.89-0.440.3-0.440.30.012.91LEAF vs HUSK-0.023.22-0.330.23-0.330.240.313.230.92LEAF vs SH_LE0.622.87-0.360.49-0.390.51.012.920.73LEAF vs COB0.622.90.460.330.460.330.172.920.95MP vs STR-0.072.95-0.070.52-0.070.52031NR vs ALUM1.113.08-1.120.88-1.320.912.433.220.45NR vs OIL-0.022.880101.07-0.023.081NR vs SB-1.163.1-1.210.92-1.220.960.063.250.98PAPER vs HUSK-1.133.150.090.160.090.16-1.223.150.7PAPER vs SH_PA0.211.260.210.240.210.25-0.011.291PAPER vs STR0.22.90.260.160.260.16-0.062.90.98SAND vs GRASS-0.322.840.020.180.020.18-0.342.850.91SAND vs HUSK-0.162.89-0.010.14-0.010.14-0.152.890.96SAND vs SH_SA0.072.89-0.110.23-0.110.230.182.90.95ALUM vs SB-0.033.54-0.090.25-0.090.250.073.550.99ALUM vs SH_HU-0.072.94-0.090.48-0.090.480.022.971ALUM vs ST_SA-0.533.08-0.571.04-0.571.10.043.280.99ALUM vs ZO0.023.26-0.010.89-0.010.930.033.390.99ALUM vs CSULF0.952.990.860.670.860.690.093.070.98SH_GY vs GYPS-0.290.72-0.150.21-0.140.21-0.160.750.84SIL vs STR-0.132.880.170.180.180.18-0.312.880.92ST_HU_SH vs HUSK-0.011.37-0.050.31-0.050.310.041.40.97STR vs HUSK-0.250.8-0.170.12-0.170.12-0.080.810.92STR vs LEAF0.12.910.160.240.160.24-0.062.920.98STR vs SAND-0.292.91-0.160.13-0.160.13-0.142.920.96STR vs ST_HU_SH-0.011.39-0.120.31-0.130.320.121.430.94CANE vs CA_SH0.10.970.150.380.160.42-0.061.060.95CSULF vs ST_SA1.493.15-1.431.02-1.771.073.263.330.33FL_B vs FL_H02.8400.300.30.012.861Supplementary Table 5. Risk ratio comparison for footpad lesions as a binary outcome for litter management interventions in a network meta-analysis of litter management in broiler chickens. The upper right hand section of the table represents the posterior median of the risk ratio between the numerator (upper left treatment) and denominator (lower right treatment). The lower left section of the table represents the 95% credibility interval for the comparison, with the rows and columns reversed. SHAVINGS0.690.651.021.184.360.90.73(0.09_1.69)SUGAR CANE0.991.491.977.81.11.03(0.08_1.46)(0.23_3.39)GRASS1.572.18.271.141.05(0.38_3.85)(0.49_20.09)(0.57_22.37)GYPSUM1.13.850.870.72(0.49_5.79)(0.87_22.06)(0.95_24.77)(0.25_7.72)HUSK3.050.730.54(0.76_118.76)(1_421.24)(1_468.94)(0.51_132.95)(0.35_101.52)PEAT MOSS0.190.14(0.13_4.77)(0.22_18.45)(0.26_20.41)(0.08_5.5)(0.05_4.27)(0_1.83)SODIUM BISULPHATE0.96(0.18_1.29)(0.27_5.7)(0.31_6.43)(0.09_1.8)(0.09_1.04)(0_1.01)(0.09_4.36)STRAWSupplementary Table 6. Mean ranking of litter management interventions for footpad lesions as a binary outcome from a Bayesian network meta-analysis of litter management in broiler chickens. Mean rank, standard deviation and quartile rankings are shown.InterventionMean RankSD2.50%50%97.50%Grass13.522.6161416Sugarcane13.032.7861416Straw12.192.3871216Sodium bisulphate10.494.0731116Shavings8.391.815812Gypsum8.083.043815Peat moss3.12.711211Supplementary Table 7: Results of the indirect comparisons for the consistency assumption for footpad lesions as binary outcome in a network meta-analysis of litter management options in broiler chickens. Columns represent posterior means (d) and standard deviations (sd) of the log-odds ratio of vaccine effects calculated using direct evidence (d), all evidence (MTC), and indirect evidence (rest); w and sd_w represent the inconsistency estimate and its standard parisond_dirsd_dird_MTCsd_MTCd_restsd_restwsd_wp_valueMP vs STR1.531.431.521.051.51.550.032.110.99ST_HU_SH vs STR-2.52.893.321.034.161.1-6.663.10.03SHAV vs PEAT-2.272.99-2.271.51-2.271.7503.471SHAV vs SB0.622.890.61.330.61.50.023.260.99SHAV vs SH_GY-0.111.1-0.110.78-0.111.0901.551SHAV vs CA_HU1.241.841.011.160.851.510.392.370.87SHAV vs ST_HU_SH-3.842.91-2.351.18-2.061.29-1.793.180.57SHAV vs STR1.021.770.960.710.950.780.071.940.97SHAV vs CA_SH1.231.851.021.140.891.460.342.360.89SHAV vs CANE1.641.811.391.131.231.450.412.310.86SHAV vs CELL-1.713.1-1.721.68-1.721.990.013.691SHAV vs FL_B-1.242.92-1.251.37-1.251.550.023.311SHAV vs FL_H0.612.870.611.340.611.5203.251SHAV vs GRASS1.771.841.551.131.431.430.342.330.88SHAV vs GYPS-0.11.4-0.10.79-0.110.950.011.691SHAV vs HUSK-1.261.63-0.480.82-0.210.95-1.051.890.58CA_SH vs CA_HU-0.011.66-0.011.15-0.011.610.012.311CA_SH vs CANE-0.381.670.371.141.031.55-1.412.280.54CA_SH vs GRASS-0.551.680.541.141.451.54-22.280.38CA_SH vs HUSK1.251.85-1.51.02-2.711.233.962.220.07CANE vs CA_HU0.361.71-0.381.15-11.551.362.310.56CANE vs GRASS-0.161.620.161.130.471.57-0.632.260.78CANE vs HUSK1.611.8-1.871.01-3.471.225.082.180.02FL_B vs FL_H-1.872.91.861.362.91.53-4.783.280.15GRASS vs CA_HU0.531.68-0.551.15-1.491.572.022.30.38GRASS vs HUSK1.791.81-2.031.01-3.761.225.552.180.01GYPS vs SH_GY-0.010.9900.7801.26-0.011.611HUSK vs CA_HU-1.261.851.491.042.741.25-42.240.07HUSK vs ST_HU_SH1.172.92-1.871.05-2.321.123.53.120.26HUSK vs STR-0.421.971.440.771.780.84-2.212.140.3Supplementary Table 8: Grade summary of evidence for mortality as an outcome in a network meta-analysis of litter management in broiler chickens. The comparisons shown represent comparisons between litter management options; comparisons where the number of contributing studies is equal to zero represent indirect evidence. Comparison# of studiesRandomizationBlindingImprecisionHeterogeneityALUM:HUSK2Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:SB1Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:SHAV1Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:SHAV3Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOB:LEAF1Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsCOB:SHAV1Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCOIR:HUSK1Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:SHAV1Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:HUSK1Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsGRASS:SAND1Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsGRASS:SHAV2Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsGYPS:SHAV4Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsHUSK:LEAF1Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsHUSK:PAPER1Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsHUSK:SAND3Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsHUSK:SHAV10Some concernsSome concernsNo concernsMajor concernsHUSK:STR7Major concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsKENAF:SHAV2Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsLEAF:SHAV3Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsLEAF:STR1Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsNO_BED:SHAV3Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPAPER:SHAV6Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPAPER:STR1Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsPEAT:SHAV1Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsSAND:SHAV4Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsSAND:STR1Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsSB:SHAV2Major concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsSHAV:SIL1Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsSHAV:STR10Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsSIL:STR1Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsALUM:CANE0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:COB0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsALUM:COIR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:GRASS0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:GYPS0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:KENAF0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:LEAF0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:NO_BED0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:PAPER0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:PEAT0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsALUM:STR0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:COB0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCANE:COIR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:GRASS0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:GYPS0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:HUSK0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:KENAF0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:LEAF0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:NO_BED0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:PAPER0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:STR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOB:COIR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOB:GRASS0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCOB:GYPS0Some concernsSome concernsNo concernsNo concernsCOB:HUSK0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCOB:KENAF0Some concernsSome concernsNo concernsNo concernsCOB:NO_BED0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCOB:PAPER0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCOB:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOB:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCOB:SB0Some concernsSome concernsNo concernsSome concernsCOB:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCOB:STR0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsCOIR:GRASS0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:GYPS0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:KENAF0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:LEAF0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:NO_BED0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:PAPER0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCOIR:STR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:GYPS0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsGRASS:KENAF0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsGRASS:LEAF0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:NO_BED0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:PAPER0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:SB0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsGRASS:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:STR0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsGYPS:HUSK0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsGYPS:KENAF0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:LEAF0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsGYPS:NO_BED0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:PAPER0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsGYPS:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsGYPS:STR0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsHUSK:KENAF0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsHUSK:NO_BED0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsHUSK:PEAT0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsHUSK:SB0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsHUSK:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsKENAF:LEAF0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsKENAF:NO_BED0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsKENAF:PAPER0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsKENAF:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsKENAF:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsKENAF:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsKENAF:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsKENAF:STR0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsLEAF:NO_BED0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsLEAF:PAPER0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsLEAF:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsLEAF:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsLEAF:SB0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsLEAF:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsNO_BED:PAPER0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsNO_BED:PEAT0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsNO_BED:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsNO_BED:SB0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsNO_BED:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsNO_BED:STR0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPAPER:PEAT0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPAPER:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPAPER:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPAPER:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPEAT:SAND0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPEAT:SB0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPEAT:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPEAT:STR0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsSAND:SB0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsSAND:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsSB:SIL0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsSome concernsSB:STR0Some concernsSome concernsSome concernsNo concernsSupplementary Table 9: Grade summary of evidence for footpad lesions as a binary outcome in a network meta-analysis of litter management in broiler chickens. The comparisons shown represent comparisons between litter management options; comparisons where the number of contributing studies is equal to zero represent indirect evidence. Comparison# of studiesRandomizationBlindingImprecisionHeterogeneityCANE:GRASS2Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:HUSK2Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:SHAV2Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:HUSK2Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:SHAV2Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:SHAV3Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsHUSK:SHAV3Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsHUSK:STR2Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPEAT:SHAV1Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsSB:SHAV1Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsSHAV:STR3Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:GYPS0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsCANE:STR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:GYPS0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGRASS:STR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:HUSK0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsGYPS:STR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsHUSK:PEAT0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsHUSK:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPEAT:SB0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsPEAT:STR0Major concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsSB:STR0Some concernsSome concernsMajor concernsNo concernsSupplementary Figure 1: Summary of individual-level risk of bias for mortality in 62 trials included in a network meta-analysis of the impact of litter management on mortality in broiler chickens.Supplementary Figure 2: The distribution of the probability of failure (mortality) for litter management options from a network meta-analysis of litter management strategies in broiler chickens.LeavesStrawLeavesStrawSupplementary Figure 3: The distribution of the probability of failure (footpad lesion) for litter management options from a network meta-analysis of litter management strategies in broiler chickens.Supplementary Figure 4: The contribution of trials to the risk ratio estimates for mortality as an outcome based on the approach to randomization; green indicates that allocation to intervention group was random and that the method of generating the random sequence was provided, yellow indicates that the authors stated that allocation was random but did not describe the method of generating the random allocation sequence, and red indicates that allocation to intervention group was not random or was not reported. White vertical lines indicate the percentage contribution of separate studies.Supplementary Figure 5: The contribution of trials to the risk ratio estimates for footpad lesions as a binary outcome based on the approach to randomization; green indicates that allocation to intervention group was random and that the method of generating the random sequence was provided, yellow indicates that the authors stated that allocation was random but did not describe the method of generating the random allocation sequence, and red indicates that allocation to intervention group was not random or was not reported. White vertical lines indicate the percentage contribution of separate studies. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download