Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39238018›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2024

The prevalence of pathogens in ticks collected from humans in Belgium, 2021, versus 2017.

Camille Philippe, Laurence Geebelen, Marie R G Hermy, François E Dufrasne, Katrien Tersago, Alessandro Pellegrino, Manoj Fonville, Hein Sprong, Marcella Mori, Tinne Lernout

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Pathogen diversity of the neglected winter tickCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    Article
  4. Prevalence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors.

Camille Philippe *Sciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Laurence Geebelen *Sciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium. laurence.geebelen@sciensano.be.
Marie R G HermySciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium.
François E DufrasneSciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Katrien TersagoDivision of Preventive Health Policy, Flemish Department of Care, Environmental Healthcare, Brussels, Belgium.
Alessandro PellegrinoInfectious Disease Surveillance Unit, Agence pour une Vie de Qualité (AVIQ), Charleroi, Belgium.
Manoj FonvilleCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Hein SprongCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Marcella Mori *Sciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Tinne Lernout *Sciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTicks carry a variety of microorganisms, some of which are pathogenic to humans. The human risk of tick-borne diseases depends on, among others, the prevalence of pathogens in ticks biting humans. To follow-up on this prevalence over time, a Belgian study from 2017 was repeated in 2021.

methodsDuring the tick season 2021, citizens were invited to have ticks removed from their skin, send them and fill in a short questionnaire on an existing citizen science platform for the notification of tick bites (TekenNet). Ticks were morphologically identified to species and life stage level and screened using multiplex qPCR targeting, among others, Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato), Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia miyamotoi, Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Babesia spp., Rickettsia helvetica and tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV). The same methodology as in 2017 was used.

resultsIn 2021, the same tick species as in 2017 were identified in similar proportions; of 1094 ticks, 98.7% were Ixodes ricinus, 0.8% Ixodes hexagonus and 0.5% Dermacentor reticulatus. A total of 928 nymphs and adults could be screened for the presence of pathogens. Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) was detected in 9.9% (95% CI 8.2-12.0%), which is significantly lower than the prevalence of 13.9% (95% CI 12.2-15.7%) in 2017 (P = 0.004). The prevalences of A. phagocytophilum (4.7%; 95% CI 3.5-6.3%) and R. helvetica (13.3%; 95% CI 11.2-15.6%) in 2021 were significantly higher compared to 2017 (1.8%; 95% CI 1.3-2.7% and 6.8%; 95% CI 5.6-8.2% respectively) (P < 0.001 for both). For the other pathogens tested, no statistical differences compared to 2017 were found, with prevalences ranging between 1.5 and 2.9% in 2021. Rickettsia raoultii was again found in D. reticulatus ticks (n = 3/5 in 2021). Similar to 2017, no TBEV was detected in the ticks. Co-infections were found in 5.1% of ticks. When combining co-infection occurrence in 2017 and 2021, a positive correlation was observed between B. burgdorferi (s.l.) and N. mikurensis and B. burgdorferi (s.l.) and B. miyamotoi (P < 0.001 for both).

conclusionsAlthough the 2021 prevalences fell within expectations, differences were found compared to 2017. Further research to understand the explanations behind these differences is needed.

Indexed as

Anaplasma phagocytophilumBorreliaBorrelia burgdorferiEncephalitis Viruses, Tick-BorneIxodesAnimalsBabesiaBelgiumDermacentorFemaleHumansMaleNymphPrevalenceRickettsiaTick Bites

Identifiers

PMID39238018
PMCPMC11378490

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.