Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39731169›Full record

ReviewParasites & vectors2024

The Rhipicephalus sanguineus group: updated list of species, geographical distribution, and vector competence.

Filipe Dantas-Torres, Lucas C de Sousa-Paula, Domenico Otranto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Parasites & vectors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Uncovering a neglected canine filarioid in Asia: First evidence ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Filipe Dantas-TorresDepartment of Immunology, Aggeu Magalhães Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Recife, Brazil. filipe.torres@fiocruz.br.
Lucas C de Sousa-PaulaTick-Pathogen Transmission Unit, Laboratory of Bacteriology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Hamilton, MT, USA.
Domenico OtrantoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bari, Valenzano, Bari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Rhipicephalus sanguineus group is an assembly of species morphologically and phylogenetically related to Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu stricto. The taxonomy and systematics of this species group have remained obscure for a long time, but extensive research conducted during the past two decades has closed many knowledge gaps. These research advancements culminated in the redescription of R. sanguineus sensu stricto, with subsequent revalidation of former synonyms (Rhipicephalus linnaei, Rhipicephalus rutilus, and Rhipicephalus secundus) and even the description of new species (Rhipicephalus afranicus and Rhipicephalus hibericus). With a much clearer picture of the taxonomy of these species, we present an updated list of species belonging to the R. sanguineus group, along with a review of their geographic distribution and vector role for various pathogens of animals and humans. We also identify knowledge gaps to be bridged in future studies.

Indexed as

Rhipicephalus sanguineusAnimal DistributionAnimalsArachnid VectorsHumansPhylogenyTick InfestationsDistributionIxodidaePathogensRhipicephalusVector

Identifiers

PMID39731169
PMCPMC11681662

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.