Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35364518›Full record

ReviewTicks and tick-borne diseases2022

Personal protection measures to prevent tick bites in the United States: Knowledge gaps, challenges, and opportunities.

Lars Eisen

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ticks and tick-borne diseases, 2022. 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
17.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Lyme borreliosis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Projecting the potential distribution ofFrontiers in public health · 2025
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lars EisenDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3156 Rampart Road, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA. Electronic address: evp4@cdc.gov.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personal protection measures to prevent human tick encounters from resulting in bites are widely recommended as the first line of defense against health impacts associated with ticks. This includes using repellents, wearing untreated or permethrin-treated protective clothing, and conducting tick checks after coming inside, aided by removing outdoor clothing articles and running them in a dryer on high heat (to kill undetected ticks) and taking a shower/bath (to aid in detecting ticks on the skin). These measures have the benefit of incurring no or low cost, but they need to be used consistently to be most effective. In this paper, I review the level of use (acceptability combined with behavior) of the above-mentioned personal protection measures and their effectiveness to prevent tick bites and tick-borne disease. Studies on the level of use of personal protection measures to prevent tick bites have used different recruitment strategies, focused on different types of respondent populations, employed variable phrasings of survey questions relating to a given personal protection measure, and presented results based on variable frequencies of taking action. This complicates the synthesis of the findings, but the studies collectively indicate that members of the public commonly take action to prevent tick bites, most frequently by wearing untreated protective clothing or conducting tick checks (done routinely by 30 to 70% of respondents in most studies of the public), followed by showering/bathing after being outdoors or using repellents on skin/clothing (15 to 40% range), and with permethrin-treated clothing being the least frequently used tick bite prevention method (<5 to 20% range). A suite of experimental studies have shown that applying repellents or permethrin to coveralls or uniform-style clothing can result in decreased numbers of tick bites, but similar studies are lacking for members of the public wearing summer-weight clothing during normal daily activities. Moreover, a set of case-control and cross-sectional studies have explored associations between use of different personal protection measures to prevent tick bites and Lyme disease or other tick-borne infections. The results are mixed for each personal protection measure, with some studies indicating that regular use of the measure is associated with a reduction in tick-borne disease while other studies found no similar protective effect. One possible interpretation is that these personal protection measures can protect against tick-borne infection but the information gathered to date has not been sufficiently detailed to clarify the circumstances under which protection is achieved, especially with regards to frequency of use, parts of the body being protected, and use of combinations of two or more potentially protective measures. In conclusion, personal protection measures to prevent tick bites are used by the public and merit further study to better understand how they need to be used to have the greatest public health impact.

Indexed as

Insect RepellentsTick BitesTick-Borne DiseasesTicksAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPermethrinUnited StatesInsect RepellentsPermethrinPersonal protectionTick biteTick-borne diseaseUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35364518
PMCPMC10859966
OpenAlexW4220876479

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.