Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31623574›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2019

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tick-borne disease risk factors in residential yards, neighborhoods, and beyond.

Ilya R Fischhoff, Sarah E Bowden, Felicia Keesing, Richard S Ostfeld

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. New insights about human tick infestation features: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    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. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Nucleic Acid Prevalence of ZoonoticTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ilya R FischhoffCary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, 2801 Sharon Turnpike, Millbrook, NY, 12545, USA. fischhoff@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6956-8284
Sarah E BowdenCary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, 2801 Sharon Turnpike, Millbrook, NY, 12545, USA.
Felicia KeesingBard College, PO Box 5000, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, 12504, USA.
Richard S OstfeldCary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, 2801 Sharon Turnpike, Millbrook, NY, 12545, USA.
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies · USBard College · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExposure to blacklegged ticks Ixodes scapularis that transmit pathogens is thought to occur peri-domestically. However, the locations where people most frequently encounter infected ticks are not well characterized, leading to mixed messages from public health officials about where risk is highest.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on spatial risk factors for tick-borne disease and tick bites in eastern North America. We examined three scales: the residential yard, the neighborhood surrounding (but not including) the yard, and outside the neighborhood. Nineteen eligible studies represented 2741 cases of tick-borne illness and 1447 tick bites. Using random effects models, we derived pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates.

resultsThe meta-analysis revealed significant disease risk factors at the scale of the yard (OR 2.60 95% CI 1.96 - 3.46), the neighborhood (OR 4.08 95% CI 2.49 - 6.68), and outside the neighborhood (OR 2.03 95% CI 1.59 - 2.59). Although significant risk exists at each scale, neighborhood scale risk factors best explained disease exposure. Analysis of variance revealed risk at the neighborhood scale was 57% greater than risk at the yard scale and 101% greater than risk outside the neighborhood.

conclusionsThis analysis emphasizes the importance of understanding and reducing tick-borne disease risk at the neighborhood scale. Risk-reducing interventions applied at each scale could be effective, but interventions applied at the neighborhood scale are most likely to protect human health.

trial registrationThe study was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42017079169 .

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansIxodesLyme DiseaseNorth AmericaOdds RatioResidence CharacteristicsRisk FactorsTick BitesTick-Borne DiseasesAnaplasmosisBabesiosisIxodes scapularisLyme diseasePeri-domesticSpatial scaleTick bites

Identifiers

PMID31623574
PMCPMC6798452
OpenAlexW2981226567

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.