Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30001350›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Using citizen science to describe the prevalence and distribution of tick bite and exposure to tick-borne diseases in the United States.

Nathan C Nieto, W Tanner Porter, Julie C Wachara, Thomas J Lowrey, Luke Martin, Peter J Motyka, Daniel J Salkeld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Beyond Human Babesiosis: Prevalence and Association ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Exploring the impact ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The contribution ofParasitology · 2023
    Review

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

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

7 authors.

Nathan C NietoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1875-9392
W Tanner PorterDepartment of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2611-0924
Julie C WacharaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, United States of America.
Thomas J LowreyDepartment of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, United States of America.
Luke MartinDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America.
Peter J MotykaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, United States of America.
Daniel J SalkeldDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tick-borne pathogens are increasing their range and incidence in North America as a consequence of numerous factors including improvements in diagnostics and diagnosis, range expansion of primary vectors, changes in human behavior, and an increasing understanding of the diversity of species of pathogens that cause human disease. Public health agencies have access to human incidence data on notifiable diseases e.g., Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, and often local pathogen prevalence in vector populations. However, data on exposure to vectors and pathogens can be difficult to determine e.g., if disease does not occur. We report on an investigation of exposure to ticks and tick-borne bacteria, conducted at a national scale, using citizen science participation. 16,080 ticks were submitted between January 2016 and August 2017, and screened for B. burgdorferi, B. miyamotoi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Babesia microti. These data corroborate entomologic investigations of tick distributions in North America, but also identify patterns of local disease risk and tick contact with humans throughout the year in numerous species of ticks and associated pathogens.

Indexed as

AnimalsCoinfectionGeographyHumansPopulation SurveillancePrevalenceSpatial AnalysisTick BitesTick-Borne DiseasesTicksUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30001350
PMCPMC6042714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.