ArticleJournal of medical entomology2025
Tick spotting: using mannequins to evaluate individual efficacy at detecting Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae).
Article in Journal of medical entomology, 2025. 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.
- Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tick checks are a free and accessible personal protection measure used to prevent tick bites and are frequently recommended by public health institutions and vector-borne disease researchers. However, little is known about how successful people are at detecting ticks on themselves or others when using this method. We developed a tool for evaluating factors affecting the efficacy of tick checks using mannequins. In 2022 and 2023, we recruited 207 participants to complete a brief survey and perform a tick check on a mannequin, where dead Ixodes scapularis Say larvae, nymphs, and adults had been glued at various locations. None of the survey results (demographics, knowledge, attitude, and concerns about ticks and tick-borne disease) were associated with likelihood of tick detection. On average, participants detected 42% of nymphs on the mannequin. Adult females were 3 to 4 times more likely to be detected than nymphs. Ticks above the waistline were detected 3 times more frequently than ticks below. Ticks that were on white-colored clothing were 3 times more likely to be detected than those on dark-colored clothing. Ticks that were not covered by hair or clothing were 2 times more likely to be detected than covered ticks. These findings show that there are multiple factors that may limit tick detection during a tick check. Outreach should emphasize the importance of awareness of size variation between stages, completing a thorough whole-body examination including the lower limbs and covered locations, and wearing light-colored clothing.
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.