Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34832535›Full record

ReviewPathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Acaricidal and Repellent Effects of Essential Oils against Ticks: A Review.

Sidi Mohammed Ammar Selles, Mokhtaria Kouidri, Marta G González, Julia González, María Sánchez, Azucena González-Coloma, Jaime Sanchis, Latifa Elhachimi, A Sonia Olmeda, José Maria Tercero and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
9.3field-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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. In vitro acaricide efficacy evaluation onParasite epidemiology and control · 2026
    Article
  5. Acaricidal Effect of Essential Oils in the Control ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Sidi Mohammed Ammar SellesInstitute of Veterinary Sciences, University of Tiaret, Tiaret 14000, Algeria.ORCID 0000-0001-8070-9981
Mokhtaria KouidriInstitute of Veterinary Sciences, University of Tiaret, Tiaret 14000, Algeria.
Marta G GonzálezGrupo de Parasitología Animal, Departamento de Reproducción Animal (INIA-CSIC), 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Julia GonzálezCenter for Vector Biology, Department of Entomology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
María SánchezGrupo de Parasitología Animal, Departamento de Reproducción Animal (INIA-CSIC), 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Azucena González-ColomaInstituto de Ciencias Agrarias (ICA), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), 28006 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5124-664X
Jaime SanchisGrupo de Parasitología Animal, Departamento de Reproducción Animal (INIA-CSIC), 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Latifa ElhachimiDépartement de parasitologie et de Santé Publique, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat B.P. 6202, Morocco.
A Sonia OlmedaDepartamento de Sanidad Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2487-1751
José Maria TerceroVillamagna S.A., Finca "La Garganta", 14440 Villanueva de Córdoba, Spain.
Félix ValcárcelGrupo de Parasitología Animal, Departamento de Reproducción Animal (INIA-CSIC), 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5609-0496
Université IBN Khaldoun Tiaret · DZConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas · ESInstitut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II · MARutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESUniversidad de la República de Uruguay · UY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tick control is a priority in order to prevent the transmission of vector-borne diseases. Industrial chemical acaricides and repellents have been the most efficient tools against hard ticks for a long time. However, the appearance of resistances has meant the declining effectiveness of the chemicals available on the market. The trend today is to develop alternative control methods using natural products to replace nonefficient pesticides and to preserve the efficient ones, hoping to delay resistance development. Traditional in vitro evaluation of acaricidal activity or resistance to synthetic pesticides have been reviewed and they mainly focus on just one species, the one host tick (

Indexed as

efficacynatural compoundsstandardizationticks

Identifiers

PMID34832535
PMCPMC8617816
OpenAlexW3208564865

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.