ArticleVeterinary world2021
Risk factors associated with ticks and
Article in Veterinary world, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- One health approach toOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Experimental infection of wild boars (Sus scrofa) with Rickettsia rickettsii and evaluation of the transmission potential to Amblyomma sculptum ticks.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Risk Factors Influencing Tick-Borne Infections in Livestock Through Molecular Analyses.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- One Health at gunpoint: Impact of wild boars as exotic species in Brazil - A review.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Review
- Perception of Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases Worldwide.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The Role of Wild Boars in the Circulation of Tick-Borne Pathogens: The First Evidence ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimWild boars have recently been implicated as the maintainers and carriers of MATERIALS AND
methodsThe statistical relationship of
resultsThe only statistically significant difference in seropositivity found in this study was between male and female wild boars (p=0.034), probably associated with in-park exposure to
conclusionThe absence of statistical differences in the associated risk factors for hunting dogs and hunters may indicate a random exposure to
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.