Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19140016›Full record

ArticleExperimental & applied acarology2009

Efficacy of the new repellent BioUD against three species of ixodid ticks.

B W Bissinger, C S Apperson, D E Sonenshine, D W Watson, R M Roe

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental & applied acarology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

B W BissingerDepartment of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7647, Raleigh, NC 27695-7613, USA.
C S Apperson
D E Sonenshine
D W Watson
R M Roe
North Carolina State University · USOld Dominion University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BioUD with the active ingredient 2-undecanone originally derived from wild tomato plants is a new repellent recently registered by the US EPA. Repellent efficacy of BioUD (7.75% 2-undecanone) and DEET (98.11%) was examined in the laboratory using a choice test between repellent-treated and control filter paper surfaces for Amblyomma americanum, Dermacentor variabilis, and Ixodes scapularis. BioUD provided greater repellency against A. americanum and I. scapularis than DEET. No difference was found between BioUD and DEET against D. variabilis. In head-to-head assays between BioUD and DEET, undiluted and 50% dilutions of BioUD were more repellent than undiluted DEET against all three species tested. Similarly, a 25% dilution of BioUD was more repellent than DEET against A. americanum while no difference in mean percentage repellency was found between a 25% dilution of BioUD and DEET against I. scapularis. Based on regression analysis, the concentration of BioUD required for equivalent repellency to 98.11% DEET was 39.5% for D. variabilis and 29.7% for I. scapularis. A log-probit model could not be constructed for A. americanum from the dosages tested. Based on filter paper head-to-head assays, BioUD is at least 2-4 times more active as a repellent than DEET against three species of ixodid ticks under the conditions of our laboratory bioassays.

Indexed as

Insect RepellentsKetonesAnimalsDEETIxodidaeSpecies SpecificityDEETInsect RepellentsKetonesundecan-2-one

Identifiers

PMID19140016
OpenAlexW2075701751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.