ArticlePloS one2024
Assessment of the efficacy of field and laboratory methods for the detection of Tropilaelaps spp.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Article
- Evaluation of methods for early detection of Tropilaelaps mites in European honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Sensitivity of current Tropilaelaps mercedesae monitoring methods in Apis mellifera colonies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Techniques and Epidemiological Methods for Parasites in Beekeeping: Considerations and Perspectives.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Correction: Assessment of the efficacy of field and laboratory methods for the detection of Tropilaelaps spp.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tropilaelaps spp. are invasive mites that cause severe disease in Apis mellifera colonies. The UK has deployed an elaborate surveillance system that seeks to detect these mites early in any invasion to allow the best opportunity to eradicate any incursion. Effective field and laboratory protocols, capable of reliably detecting low numbers of mites, are key to the success of any intervention. Here we compared the efficacy of established field monitoring using brood removal with an uncapping fork, and brood 'bump' methods with novel methods for Tropilaelaps detection modified from Varroa monitoring schemes. In addition, we monitored the efficacy of the laboratory method for screening for mites in hive debris by floating mites in ethanol. Our results clearly indicated that novel methods such as uncapping infested brood with tweezers, catching mite drop using sticky traps and rolling adult bees in icing sugar were all significantly more likely to detect Tropilaelaps than existing methods such as using an uncapping fork on infested brood, or the brood 'bump' method. Existing laboratory protocols that sieved hive debris and then floated the mite containing layer failed to detect Tropilaelaps mites and new efficacious protocols were developed. Our results demonstrated that the national surveillance protocols for Tropilaelaps mite detection required modification to improve the early detection of this damaging invasive mite.
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.