Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33242188›Full record

ArticleExperimental & applied acarology2021

Validating a common tick survey method: cloth-dragging and line transects.

Pia L Kjellander, Malin Aronsson, Ulrika A Bergvall, Josep L Carrasco, Madeleine Christensson, Per-Eric Lindgren, Mikael Åkesson, Petter Kjellander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental & applied acarology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Novel High Discriminatory Protocol for the Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Pia L KjellanderDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. pia.kjellander@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0871-1571
Malin AronssonGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9026-3765
Ulrika A BergvallGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-1591
Josep L CarrascoDepartment of Basic Clinical Practice, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1184-0753
Madeleine ChristenssonGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5602-1036
Per-Eric LindgrenDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2767-3638
Mikael ÅkessonGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4325-8840
Petter KjellanderGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4272-6737

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cloth-dragging is the most widely-used method for collecting and counting ticks, but there are few studies of its reliability. By using cloth-dragging, we applied a replicated line transects survey method, in two areas in Sweden with different Ixodes ricinus tick-densities (low at Grimsö and high at Bogesund) to evaluate developmental stage specific repeatability, agreement and precision in estimates of tick abundance. 'Repeatability' was expressed as the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), 'agreement' with the Total Deviation Index (TDI) and 'precision' by the coefficient of variation (CV) for a given dragging distance. Repeatability (ICC) and agreement (TDI) were higher for the most abundant instar (nymphs) and in the area of higher abundance. At Bogesund tick counts were higher than at Grimsö and so also repeatability, with fair to substantial ICC estimates between 0.22 and 0.75, and TDI ranged between 1 and 44.5 counts of difference (thus high to moderate agreement). At Grimsö, ICC was poor to moderate and ranged between 0 and 0.59, whereas TDI remained low with estimates lower or equal to 1 count (thus high agreement). Despite a 100-fold lower abundance at Grimsö, the same level of precision for nymphs could be achieved with a 70% increase of dragging effort. We conclude that the cloth-dragging technique is useful for surveying ticks' and primarily to estimate abundance of the nymphal stage, whereas it rarely will be recommended for larvae and adults.

Indexed as

IxodesAnimalsNymphReproducibility of ResultsSeasonsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenDraggingIxodesRepeatabilityTickTotal deviation indexValidation

Identifiers

PMID33242188
PMCPMC7736024

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.