ArticleCentral European journal of public health2024
Not bitten by Ixodes ticks or bitten without symptoms, why still to worry?
Article in Central European journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experimental evidence rules out mosquitoes as vectors of Lyme disease.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of the current study was to analyse the risks of Lyme borreliosis (LB) among 1,070 forestry workers, the influence of responsible behaviour (use of repellents, skin self-inspection) on Borrelia screening result status, and the occurrence of immediate and mid-term symptoms after tick bites and LB positive serological screening test.
methodsThe questionnaire was conducted as well as blood tests for LB disease by one-stage serological screening procedure using ELISA for specific B. burgdorferi IgM and IgG antibodies (EuroImmun AG company, Germany).
resultsWhile 39.6% of foresters were LB positive among bitten foresters, as many as 27.0% were LB positive among those, who did not recall any tick attacks at all. Individuals with known history of tick bites had significantly higher odds (1.770×) of being LB positive (p < 0.05), while the use of repellents or skin self-inspection after visiting woods had no influence on LB results. The odds of skin discolouration after tick bites was significantly lower (0.682×) in case of LB positive test compared to LB negative test (p < 0.05), which can be explained by the fact that foresters could be unaware about erythema migrans appearance and timing, considering tick bite and developed later rash as completely separate events. Moreover, 69.1% of the bitten foresters with LB positive result developed no secondary symptoms (excluding those related to the skin), and the most frequent clinical symptoms were arthralgia (24.9%), followed by myalgia (7.6%), headache (5.7%), and damage to facial nerve (2.7%), which are non-specific and can be present in other illnesses.
conclusionTherefore, the recommendations proposed would be the regular laboratory testing for LB of sensitive and at-risk population, who visits endemic woody areas, irrespective of all other factors involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39352092What 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.