ReviewCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases2024
Meta-analysis of tick-borne and other pathogens: Co-infection or co-detection? That is the question.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- High throughput sequencing in the diagnosis and surveillance of tick-borne diseases: A narrative review.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Tick-Borne Co-Infection in Lyme Disease: Clinical Impact, Diagnostic Challenges, and Therapeutic Perspectives.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Molecular Surveillance ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.