ArticleAsia Pacific allergy2019
Tick killing
Article in Asia Pacific allergy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tick bite prevention and management: integrating patient perspectives to shape patient education.Asia Pacific allergy · 2026Article
- A systematic review of tick removal techniques: Relationship to outcomes of tick-induced allergic reactions and tick-borne illnesses.Asia Pacific allergy · 2025Review
- Nano-Agrochemicals as Substitutes for Pesticides: Prospects and Risks.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A contrivance of tick removal to prevent skin damage: Injection into the tick before removal.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2022Article
- Tick anaphylaxis triggered by pulling out the tick.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTick anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal outcome of improper tick removal and management.
objectiveTo investigate whether killing ticks in-situ with ether-containing sprays or permethrin cream, before careful removal by the mouthparts could reduce this risk.
methodsThis was a prospective study at Mona Vale Hospital Emergency Department (ED) in Sydney, New South Wales, over a 6-month period during the peak tick season of 2016. Tick removal methods, allergic/anaphylactic reactions were recorded for patients presenting with ticks
resultsOne hundred twenty-one patients met study inclusion criteria. Sixty-one patients (28 known tick-hypersensitive) had ticks killed with Wart-Off Freeze or Lyclear Scabies Cream (5% w/w permethrin) before removal with fine-tipped forceps or Tick Twister. Three patients (2 known tick-hypersensitive) had allergic reactions (5%), none anaphylactic. The 2 known hypersensitive patients suffered reactions during the killing process and the third patient had a particularly embedded tick meaning it could not be removed solely by mouthparts. Fifty patients presented to the ED posttick removal by various methods, none using either fine-tipped forceps or Tick Twister, of which 43 (86%) experienced allergic reactions - 2 anaphylactic. Five patients suffered allergic reactions before presentation despite no attempt at kill or removal, but ticks had likely been disturbed by some other method. Five patients had live ticks removed in ED - 3 refused killing and had no reaction despite 1 having known hypersensitivity; 2 had ticks on eyelids contraindicating killing, 1 with known hypersensitivity but both had allergic reactions post removal.
conclusionResults support killing ticks in-situ before careful removal by mouthparts to reduce allergic/anaphylactic reactions although further research is still required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.