Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39483631›Full record

ReviewCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases2024

Meta-analysis of tick-borne and other pathogens: Co-infection or co-detection? That is the question.

Stefania Porcelli, Pierre Lucien Deshuillers, Sara Moutailler, Anne-Claire Lagrée

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Molecular Surveillance ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Stefania PorcelliANSES, INRAE, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire D'Alfort, UMR BIPAR, Laboratoire de Santé Animale, 94700, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Pierre Lucien DeshuillersANSES, INRAE, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire D'Alfort, UMR BIPAR, Laboratoire de Santé Animale, 94700, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Sara MoutaillerANSES, INRAE, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire D'Alfort, UMR BIPAR, Laboratoire de Santé Animale, 94700, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Anne-Claire LagréeANSES, INRAE, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire D'Alfort, UMR BIPAR, Laboratoire de Santé Animale, 94700, Maisons-Alfort, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This literature-based review aims to distinguish studies describing co-infection with tick-borne pathogens from those describing co-detection or co-exposure scenarios. The review analyzed 426 papers and identified only 20 with direct evidence of co-infection in humans and animals, highlighting the need for accurate terminology and proposing definitions for co-infection, co-exposure and co-detection. Current diagnostic methods - including serology and molecular techniques - have limitations in accurately identifying real co-infections, often leading to misinterpretation. The review highlights the importance of developing laboratory models to better understand tick-borne pathogen interactions, and advocates improved diagnostic strategies for tick screening by testing their RNA for co-infections. Moreover, the establishment of additional animal models for pathogen co-infection will help develop our understanding of selection pressures for various traits of tick-borne pathogens (such as virulence and transmissibility) over time. This comprehensive analysis provides insights into the complexity of tick-borne pathogen co-infections and calls for precise diagnostic terms to improve the clarity and effectiveness of future research.

Indexed as

Animal modelCo-infectionDiagnostic methodsPathogen interactionsTick-borne diseaseTick-borne pathogens

Identifiers

PMID39483631
PMCPMC11525461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.