ArticleExperimental & applied acarology2021
The tick fauna in Istanbul, Turkey, from 2013 to 2017 and identification of their pathogens by multiplex PCR: an epidemiological study.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and mapping of potential and highly likely vectors for selected vector-borne diseases in the EU and neighbouring countries.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Lyme Disease and Relapsing FeverPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- History and Current Status of Mediterranean Spotted Fever (MSF) in the Crimean Peninsula and Neighboring Regions along the Black Sea Coast.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ticks may carry several pathogens as vectors and their pathogen load may vary due to differences in geography, climate and vegetation. In this study, we collected ticks from 39 districts of Istanbul (Turkey) between May and October, from 2013 to 2017, and identified them under stereo-microscope. In addition, we investigated the pathogens that the ticks carry (Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Rickettsia sp. and Babesia sp.) by using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. We collected a total of 875 ticks from the ground and from various animals and kept them at 4 °C until experiments. We identified 248 Rhipicephalus bursa (28.3% of the total), 205 (23.4%) Rhipicephalus annulatus, 197 (22.5%) Haemaphysalis concinna, 149 (17.0%) Rhipicephalus sanguineus, 24 (2.7%) Hyalomma marginatum, 21 (2.4%) Ixodes ricinus, 13 (1.5%) Rhipicephalus kohlsi, 5 (0.6%) Hyalomma anatolicum, 5 (0.6%) Hyalomma aegyptium, 5 (0.6%) Dermacentor niveus and 3 (0.3%) Ixodes hexagonus. We included a total of 328 questing ticks in the study: 63 R. bursa, 63 R. sanguineus, 63 R. annulatus, 63 H. concinna, 24 H. marginatum, 21 I. ricinus, 13 R. kohlsi, 5 H. anatolicum, 5 H. aegyptium, 5 D. niveus and 3 I. hexagonus. Multiplex PCR indicated that 80 (24.4%) ticks were infected with Rickettsia sp., 5 (1.5%) with B. burgdorferi and 1 (0.3%) with Babesia sp. Our study indicated that Rickettsia is more common in ticks collected around Istanbul.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34251570What 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.