Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26740276›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of infectious diseases2016

Effectiveness of Residential Acaricides to Prevent Lyme and Other Tick-borne Diseases in Humans.

Alison F Hinckley, James I Meek, Julie A E Ray, Sara A Niesobecki, Neeta P Connally, Katherine A Feldman, Erin H Jones, P Bryon Backenson, Jennifer L White, Gary Lukacik and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Alison F HinckleyDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado.
James I MeekConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven.
Julie A E RayConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven.
Sara A NiesobeckiConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven.
Neeta P ConnallyWestern Connecticut State University, Danbury.
Katherine A FeldmanMaryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore.
Erin H JonesMaryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore.
P Bryon BackensonNew York State Department of Health, Albany.
Jennifer L WhiteNew York State Department of Health, Albany.
Gary LukacikNew York State Department of Health, Albany.
Ashley B KayDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Wilson P MirandaNew York State Department of Health, Albany.
Paul S MeadDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado.
New York State Department of Health · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USMaryland Department of Health · USWestern Connecticut State University · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NCEZID CDC HHS U50 CK000195NCEZID CDC HHS U50 CK000199NCEZID CDC HHS U50 CK000203NCPDCID CDC HHS U01 CI000307NCPDCID CDC HHS U01 CI000310NCPDCID CDC HHS U01 CI000311
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the northeastern United States, tick-borne diseases are a major public health concern. In controlled studies, a single springtime application of acaricide has been shown to kill 68%-100% of ticks. Although public health authorities recommend use of acaricides to control tick populations in yards, the effectiveness of these pesticides to prevent tick bites or human tick-borne diseases is unknown.

methodsWe conducted a 2-year, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial among 2727 households in 3 northeastern states. Households received a single springtime barrier application of bifenthrin or water according to recommended practices. Tick drags were conducted 3-4 weeks after treatment on 10% of properties. Information on human-tick encounters and tick-borne diseases was collected through monthly surveys; reports of illness were validated by medical record review.

resultsAlthough the abundance of questing ticks was significantly lower (63%) on acaricide-treated properties, there was no difference between treatment groups in human-tick encounters, self-reported tick-borne diseases, or medical-record-validated tick-borne diseases.

conclusionsUsed as recommended, acaricide barrier sprays do not significantly reduce the household risk of tick exposure or incidence of tick-borne disease. Measures for preventing tick-borne diseases should be evaluated against human outcomes to confirm effectiveness.

Indexed as

AcaricidesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsChildChild, PreschoolDouble-Blind MethodFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedAcaricidesbifenthrinPlacebosPyrethrinsacaricidehumansLyme diseasepesticidepreventiontick-borne diseasesticks

Identifiers

PMID26740276
PMCPMC10874626
OpenAlexW2319515336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.