Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34749665›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2021

Antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention against Lyme disease following tick bite: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guozhong Zhou, Xin Xu, Yu Zhang, Peng Yue, Shiqi Luo, Yuxin Fan, Jingjing Chen, Meixiao Liu, Yan Dong, Bingxue Li and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Non-vaccinal prophylaxis of tularemia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guozhong ZhouThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Xin XuThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Yu ZhangThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Peng YueThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Shiqi LuoThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Yuxin FanThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Jingjing ChenThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Meixiao LiuThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Yan DongThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Bingxue LiThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Jing KongThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Shiyuan WenThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Aihua LiuThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China. liuaihua@kmmu.edu.cn.
Fukai BaoThe Institute for Tropical Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China. baofukai@kmmu.edu.cn.
Kunming Medical University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31560051National Natural Science Foundation of China 81560596National Natural Science Foundation of China 81860644Natural Foundation of Yunnan Province 2017FE467-(001)Natural Foundation of Yunnan Province 2019FE001-(002)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn areas where Lyme disease is endemic, bites from ticks are common, but no vaccine is currently available against Lyme disease for humans. Therefore, the feasibility of using antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Lyme disease after a tick bite is worth further exploration. Previous meta-analyses lack sufficient power to demonstrate the efficacy of about antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease following a tick bite. In this study, we explored more precise evidence and attempted to identify and update optimum treatment strategies.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies until March 23, 2021. We included studies if the enrolled patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group within 72 h following a tick bite and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrolment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for data abstraction. Two authors (GZZ and XX) independently reviewed the abstracts and identified articles for detailed assessment. We used a random-effects model to calculate the pooled results and reported the 95% confidence interval (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for the rates of unfavorable events in patients who received intervention versus the control group. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021245002.

resultsSix studies (3,766 individuals) were included. The pooled rate of unfavorable events in persons receiving treatment and the control group were 0.4% (95%CI: 0.1-1.1%) and 2.2% (95%CI: 1.6-3.0%), respectively. The pooled RR was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.22-0.66). Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled RR was 0.29 (95%CI: 0.14-0.60) in the single-use 200-mg doxycycline group; 0.28 (95%CI: 0.05-1.67) in a 10-day course group (Amoxicillin, Penicillin or tetracycline); and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.25-2.08) in a topical antibiotic treatment group (Azithromycin).

conclusionsThe available evidence supports the use of antibiotics for the prevention of Lyme disease, and reveals advantages of using single-dose; however, further confirmation is needed.

Indexed as

Lyme DiseaseTick BitesAmoxicillinAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisDoxycyclineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAmoxicillinAnti-Bacterial AgentsDoxycyclineBorrelia burgdorferiBorreliosisIxodesLyme diseaseTick bite

Identifiers

PMID34749665
PMCPMC8573889
OpenAlexW3186247373

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.