Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31727162›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2019

Using imperfect data in predictive mapping of vectors: a regional example of Ixodes ricinus distribution.

Rita Ribeiro, Jude I Eze, Lucy Gilbert, G R William Wint, George Gunn, Alastair Macrae, Jolyon M Medlock, Harriet Auty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Global Distribution ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
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

8 authors.

Rita RibeiroDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Science, Northern Faculty Scotland's Rural College, An Lòchran, 10 Inverness Campus, Inverness, IV2 5NA, UK. rita.ribeiro@sruc.ac.uk.
Jude I EzeDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Science, Northern Faculty Scotland's Rural College, An Lòchran, 10 Inverness Campus, Inverness, IV2 5NA, UK.
Lucy GilbertInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK.
G R William WintEnvironmental Research Group Oxford, c/o Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK.
George GunnDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Science, Northern Faculty Scotland's Rural College, An Lòchran, 10 Inverness Campus, Inverness, IV2 5NA, UK.
Alastair MacraeThe Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and the Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
Jolyon M MedlockMedical Entomology & Zoonoses Ecology, Emergency Response Department-Science & Technology, Public Health England (PHE), Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG, UK.
Harriet AutyDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Science, Northern Faculty Scotland's Rural College, An Lòchran, 10 Inverness Campus, Inverness, IV2 5NA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowledge of Ixodes ricinus tick distribution is critical for surveillance and risk management of transmissible tick-borne diseases such as Lyme borreliosis. However, as the ecology of I. ricinus is complex, and robust long-term geographically extensive distribution tick data are limited, mapping often relies on datasets collected for other purposes. We compared the modelled distributions derived from three datasets with information on I. ricinus distribution (quantitative I. ricinus count data from scientific surveys; I. ricinus presence-only data from public submissions; and a combined I. ricinus dataset from multiple sources) to assess which could be reliably used to inform Public Health strategy. The outputs also illustrate the strengths and limitations of these three types of data, which are commonly used in mapping tick distributions.

methodsUsing the Integrated Nested Laplace algorithm we predicted I. ricinus abundance and presence-absence in Scotland and tested the robustness of the predictions, accounting for errors and uncertainty.

resultsAll models fitted the data well and the covariate predictors for I. ricinus distribution, i.e. deer presence, temperature, habitat, index of vegetation, were as expected. Differences in the spatial trend of I. ricinus distribution were evident between the three predictive maps. Uncertainties in the spatial models resulted from inherent characteristics of the datasets, particularly the number of data points, and coverage over the covariate range used in making the predictions.

conclusionsQuantitative I. ricinus data from scientific surveys are usually considered to be gold standard data and we recommend their use where high data coverage can be achieved. However in this study their value was limited by poor data coverage. Combined datasets with I. ricinus distribution data from multiple sources are valuable in addressing issues of low coverage and this dataset produced the most appropriate map for national scale decision-making in Scotland. When mapping vector distributions for public-health decision making, model uncertainties and limitations of extrapolation need to be considered; these are often not included in published vector distribution maps. Further development of tools to better assess uncertainties in the models and predictions are necessary to allow more informed interpretation of distribution maps.

Indexed as

Animal DistributionArthropod VectorsData AccuracyIxodesAnimalsData AnalysisDeerEcosystemModels, StatisticalPublic HealthScotlandTick-Borne DiseasesData qualityDecision makingIxodes ricinusPredictive mapsPublic healthUncertaintyVector-borne diseases

Identifiers

PMID31727162
PMCPMC6857280

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.