ArticleExperimental & applied acarology2012
Association between ecological factors and the presence of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus larvae in Puerto Rico.
Article in Experimental & applied acarology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulation tools for assessment of tick suppression treatments of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus on non-lactating dairy cattle in Puerto Rico.Parasites & vectors · 2019Article
- Pathogenic Landscape of Transboundary Zoonotic Diseases in the Mexico-US Border Along the Rio Grande.Frontiers in public health · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A prevalence study was conducted to survey tick larvae populations in Puerto Rico (PR), compare the number of infested sites with Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus larvae between the wet and dry season, and assess the associations of ecologic factors on the presence of R. microplus larvae. Ninety-six sites were selected using a GIS-based sampling method. Each site was sampled twice; the first sampling was performed during the dry season (March 4-18, 2007) and the second sampling during the wet season (August 13-26, 2007). Sites were sampled using a tick drag with a 1-m(2) white flannel cloth along a 50-m straight course. Only 2 tick species were identified. In the dry season, 15 sites (0.16, 95 % CI = 0.09-0.24) were identified with R. microplus larvae (n = 606) and 9 sites (0.09, 95 % CI = 0.04-0.17) with Dermacentor (Anocentor) nitens larvae (n = 779), whereas in the wet season 5 sites (0.05, 95 % CI = 0.02-0.12) were identified with R. microplus (n = 94), and 5 sites (0.05 %, 95 % CI = 0.02-0.12) with D. nitens (n = 275). Difference in the number of infested sites with R. microplus was significant (P = 0.031) between the 2 seasons. Factors associated with the presence of R. microplus larvae in PR were wind speed of >4.0 km/h (OR = 0.07, 95 % CI = 0.01-0.63), more than 25 % bushes and shrubs on the site (OR = 11, 95 % CI = 1.6-71), and presence of cattle on the site (OR = 26, 95 % CI = 3.4-188).
Indexed as
Identifiers
22638941What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.