Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31752967›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2019

Prevalence of pathogens in ticks collected from humans through citizen science in Belgium.

Tinne Lernout, Nick De Regge, Katrien Tersago, Manoj Fonville, Vanessa Suin, Hein Sprong

Open access · goldAbstract 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 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Prevalence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Molecular Survey ofVeterinary sciences · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tinne LernoutSciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium. Tinne.Lernout@sciensano.be.
Nick De ReggeSciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Katrien TersagoSciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Manoj FonvilleCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Vanessa SuinSciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Hein SprongCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Sciensano (Belgium) · BENational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to evaluate the risk of human exposure to tick-borne pathogens in Belgium, a study on the prevalence of several pathogens was conducted on feeding ticks removed from humans in 2017.

methodsUsing a citizen science approach based on an existing notification tool for tick bites, a sample of ticks was collected across the country. Collected ticks were screened by PCR for the presence of the following pathogens: Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Babesia spp., Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato), Borrelia miyamotoi, Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Rickettsia helvetica and tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV).

resultsIn total, 1599 ticks were included in the sample. The great majority of ticks belonged to Ixodes ricinus (99%); other tick species were identified as Ixodes hexagonus (0.7%) and Dermacentor reticulatus (0.3%). Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) was detected in 14% of nymphs and adult ticks. Adult ticks (20%) were more likely to be infected than nymphs (12%). The most common genospecies were B. afzelii (52%) and B. garinii (21%). Except for TBEV, the other tick-borne pathogens studied were all detected in the tick sample, although at a lower prevalence: 1.5% for Babesia spp.; 1.8% for A. phagocytophilum; 2.4% for B. miyamotoi; 2.8% for N. mikurensis; and 6.8% for R. helvetica. Rickettsia raoultii, the causative agent of tick-borne lymphadenopathy, was identified for the first time in Belgium, in two out of five D. reticulatus ticks. Co-infections were found in 3.9% of the examined ticks. The most common co-infection was B. burgdorferi (s.l.) + N. mikurensis.

conclusionsAlthough for most of the tick-borne diseases in Belgium, other than Lyme borreliosis, no or few cases of human infection are reported, the pathogens causing these diseases were all (except for TBEV) detected in the tick study sample. Their confirmed presence can help raise awareness among citizens and health professionals in Belgium on possible diseases other than Lyme borreliosis in patients presenting fever or other non-characteristic symptoms after a tick bite.

Indexed as

Citizen ScienceAnimalsArachnid VectorsBacteriaBelgiumDermacentorEncephalitis Viruses, Tick-BorneHumansIxodesPolymerase Chain ReactionPrevalenceCitizen scienceHumansLyme borreliosisTick-borne pathogensTicks

Identifiers

PMID31752967
PMCPMC6873681
OpenAlexW2990270563

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.