ReviewEmerging infectious diseases2024
Efficacy of Unregulated Minimum Risk Products to Kill and Repel Ticks.
Review in Emerging infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Field evaluation of novel experimental nootkatone-based products for control of Ixodes scapularis and Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae).Journal of medical entomology · 2026Article
- Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026Review
- A natural barrier: tick-repellent potential of a spruce-derived volatile blend against Hyalomma excavatum and Ixodes ricinus.Pest management science · 2026Article
- Tick Control Strategies: Critical Insights into Chemical, Biological, Physical, and Integrated Approaches for Effective Hard Tick Management.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Efficacy of unregulated minimum risk tick repellent products evaluated with Ixodes scapularis nymphs in a human skin bioassay.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human-biting ticks threaten public health in the United States. Registration by the Environmental Protection Agency of products to kill host-seeking ticks or repel ticks contacting humans is indicative of their safety and effectiveness. Unregulated minimum risk products, exempt from Environmental Protection Agency registration and often based on botanical oils, are proliferating in the marketplace, but there is concern about their effectiveness to kill and repel ticks. Evaluations of such products are limited in the published literature. A review showed considerable variability among minimum risk products to kill host-seeking blacklegged ticks, with effectiveness similar to chemical pesticide products for some minimum risk products but minimal impact on the ticks for other products. Evaluations of minimum risk tick repellents have typically focused on individual active ingredients rather than formulated products, which often combine multiple active ingredients. Consumers should be aware that effectiveness to kill and repel ticks can differ among unregulated minimum risk products.
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.