Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35451704›Full record

ArticleParasitology research2022

Monitoring of ticks and their pathogens from companion animals obtained by the "tekenscanner" application in The Netherlands.

F N J Kooyman, H Zweerus, E R Nijsse, F Jongejan, J A Wagenaar, E M Broens

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasitology research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Heliyon · 2024
    Article
  5. Control of companion animal parasites and impact on One Health.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024
    Review
  6. Co-Occurrence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

F N J KooymanDepartment Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. f.n.j.kooyman@uu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3625-3432
H ZweerusDepartment Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E R NijsseDepartment Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
F JongejanDepartment of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X40, Onderstepoort, 0110, South Africa.
J A WagenaarDepartment Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E M BroensDepartment Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLOnderstepoort Veterinary Academic Hospital · ZAUniversity of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ticks are vectors for many pathogens of veterinary and medical interest. In order to monitor ticks and tick-borne pathogens, the "Tekenscanner" (Dutch for Tick scanner), a citizen science project, was launched in The Netherlands. It is a smartphone application for pet-owners to get ticks from their dog or cat, identified and checked for pathogens for free. At the same time, information about the pet and the geographic location of tick infestation becomes available for research. The application was launched in 2018, and the results of the first 6 months after launch of the app were reported. Ticks were identified based on morphology, and DNA was extracted and amplified by a panel of tick-borne pathogen-specific primers. Next, the amplicons were subjected to reverse line blot with specific probes for important pathogens to determine their presence or absence. The present paper describes the results of 2019 and 2020. There were 2260 ticks collected from 871 dogs and 255 cats (26 ticks were from an unknown host) and all pet owners were informed about the results. Four species of ticks were collected: Ixodes ricinus (90.0%), Ixodes hexagonus (7.3%), Dermacentor reticulatus (2.8%) and Rhipicephalus sanguineus (0.1%). Ixodes ricinus was the tick with the most divergent pathogens: Anaplasma sp. (1.3%), Babesia sp. (0.8%), Borrelia spp. (4.8%), Neoehrlichia sp. (3.7%) and Rickettsia helvetica (12.6%). In I. hexagonus, R. helvetica (1.8%) and Babesia sp. (0.6%) were detected and Rickettsia raoultii in D. reticulatus (16.2%). One of the two nymphs of R. sanguineus was co-infected with Borrelia and R. helvetica and the other one was uninfected. The high numbers of different pathogens found in this study suggest that companion animals, by definition synanthropic animals, and their ticks can serve as sentinels for emerging tick-borne pathogens.

Indexed as

BabesiaBorreliaDog DiseasesIxodesRickettsiaTick-Borne DiseasesTick InfestationsAnimalsDogsNetherlandsPetsCatsCitizen scienceDogsSmartphone appTick-borne pathogensTicks

Identifiers

PMID35451704
PMCPMC9023694
OpenAlexW4224249331

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.