Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34270770›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical entomology2021

A Survey of Tick Surveillance and Control Practices in the United States.

Emily M Mader, Claudia Ganser, Annie Geiger, Laura C Harrington, Janet Foley, Rebecca L Smith, Nohra Mateus-Pinilla, Pete D Teel, Rebecca J Eisen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical entomology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Perception of Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases Worldwide.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Emily M MaderDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Claudia GanserDepartment of Geography and Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Annie GeigerDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Laura C HarringtonDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-2143-2051
Janet FoleySchool of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, University of California, Davis, CA.
Rebecca L SmithCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Pathobiology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Nohra Mateus-PinillaIllinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-7359
Pete D TeelDepartment of Entomology, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
Rebecca J EisenDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO.
Cornell University · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

ACL HHS U01CK000510ACL HHS U01CK000512Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000505NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000509NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000510NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000512NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tickborne diseases are an increasing public health threat in the United States. Prevention and diagnosis of tickborne diseases are improved by access to current and accurate information on where medically important ticks and their associated human and veterinary pathogens are present, their local abundance or prevalence, and when ticks are actively seeking hosts. The true extent of tick and tickborne pathogen expansion is poorly defined, in part because of a lack of nationally standardized tick surveillance. We surveyed 140 vector-borne disease professionals working in state, county, and local public health and vector control agencies to assess their 1) tick surveillance program objectives, 2) pathogen testing methods, 3) tick control practices, 4) data communication strategies, and 5) barriers to program development and operation. Fewer than half of respondents reported that their jurisdiction was engaged in routine, active tick surveillance, but nearly two-thirds reported engaging in passive tick surveillance. Detection of tick presence was the most commonly stated current surveillance objective (76.2%). Most of the programs currently supporting tick pathogen testing were in the Northeast (70.8%), Upper and Central Midwest (64.3%), and the West (71.4%) regions. The most common pathogens screened for were Rickettsia spp. (Rickettsiales: Rickettsiaceae) and bacterial and viral agents transmitted by Ixodes (Acari: Ixodidae) ticks. Only 12% of respondents indicated their jurisdiction directly conducts or otherwise financially supports tick control. Responses indicated that their ability to expand the capacity of tick surveillance and control programs was impeded by inconsistent funding, limited infrastructure, guidance on best practices, and institutional capacity to perform these functions.

Indexed as

AnimalsArachnid VectorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTick ControlTicksUnited StatesOne Healthonline surveysurveillanceticktickborne disease

Identifiers

PMID34270770
PMCPMC9379860
OpenAlexW3036552140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.