ArticleInfection2020
Assessment of Coxiella burnetii presence after tick bite in north-eastern Poland.
Article in Infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seroprevalence of tick-borne infections in blood donors in Europe: a systematic review.New microbes and new infections · 2025Review
- One health behind bars: Seroincidence ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of acute Q fever using targeted next‑generation sequencing: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Composition of the Midgut Microbiota Structure ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Multiple spacer sequence typing ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Article
- What do we know about the microbiome ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study is to assess anti-Coxiella burnetii antibodies presence in inhabitants of north-eastern Poland, to assess the risk of Q fever after tick bite and to assess the percentage of co-infection with other pathogens.
methodsThe serological study included 164 foresters and farmers with a history of tick bite. The molecular study included 540 patients, hospitalized because of various symptoms after tick bite. The control group consisted of 20 honorary blood donors. Anti-Coxiella burnetii antibodies titers were determined by Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) Phase 1 IgG ELISA (DRG International Inc. USA). PCR was performed to detect DNA of C. burnetii, Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum.
resultsAnti-C. burnetii IgG was detected in six foresters (7.3%). All foresters with the anti-C. burnetii IgG presence were positive toward anti-B. burgdorferi IgG and anti-TBE (tick-borne encephalitis). Anti-C. burnetii IgG was detected in five farmers (6%). Four farmers with anti-C. burnetii IgG presence were positive toward anti-B. burgdorferi IgG and two with anti-TBE. Among them one was co-infected with B. burgdorferi and TBEV. Correlations between anti-C. burnetii IgG and anti-B. burgdorferi IgG presence and between anti-C. burnetii IgG presence and symptoms of Lyme disease were observed. C. burnetii DNA was not detected in any of the 540 (0%) patients.
conclusionsC. burnetii is rarely transmitted by ticks, but we proved that it is present in the environment, so it may be a danger to humans. The most common co-occurrence after tick bite concerns C. burnetii and B. burgdorferi.
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.