Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40604446›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025

A systematic review of the effectiveness and utility of Lyme disease prevention measures in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

Katarina Ost, Michala Norman, Ariane Dumas, Tricia Corrin, Lisa Waddell, Renee Schryer, Claudia Duguay, Olivia Facchin, Kate Zinszer, Jean-Phillipe Rocheleau and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
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

15 authors.

Katarina OstSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. ostk91@gmail.com.
Michala NormanSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ariane DumasPublic Health Risk Sciences Division | Division Sciences des risques pour la santé Publique, National Microbiology Laboratory | Laboratoire National de Microbiologie, Public Health Agency of Canada | Agence de la santé Publique du Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Tricia CorrinPublic Health Risk Sciences Division | Division Sciences des risques pour la santé Publique, National Microbiology Laboratory | Laboratoire National de Microbiologie, Public Health Agency of Canada | Agence de la santé Publique du Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Lisa WaddellPublic Health Risk Sciences Division | Division Sciences des risques pour la santé Publique, National Microbiology Laboratory | Laboratoire National de Microbiologie, Public Health Agency of Canada | Agence de la santé Publique du Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Renee SchryerSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Claudia DuguaySchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Olivia FacchinSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kate ZinszerCanadian Lyme Disease Research Network, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Jean-Phillipe RocheleauCanadian Lyme Disease Research Network, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Catherine BouchardPublic Health Risk Sciences Division | Division Sciences des risques pour la santé Publique, National Microbiology Laboratory | Laboratoire National de Microbiologie, Public Health Agency of Canada | Agence de la santé Publique du Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Cécile AenishaenslinCanadian Lyme Disease Research Network, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Alison KrentelSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Cindy FengDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Manisha A KulkarniSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes for Health Research 166112
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of interventions which reduce human-tick encounters, prevent tick bites, and reduce the risk of Borrelia burgdorferi transmission, and to evaluate knowledge on the cost, environmental impact, social impact and acceptability, and public health impact of these interventions.

methodsThe search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Global Health, CAB Abstracts, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Econlit for relevant literature in March 2022 and was updated in November 2024 and followed PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Inclusion was applied at citation and full text, after which articles were assessed for risk of bias and data was extracted by two independent reviewers. Studies were summarized by intervention type (landscape management, host animal parasitism and movement, chemical/natural/botanical applications, personal protection) and a multi-study synthesis of tick suppression effects was conducted for interventions that reported the density of infected nymphs as the primary outcome.

resultsOne hundred and twenty-seven studies published between 1977 and 2024 were included in this systematic review. Most studies (n = 62) were classified as host-targeted interventions. Twenty-five studies were included in the multi-study synthesis of tick suppression effects, which suggested that chemical tick control methods are the most effective and consistent intervention type with 93.8% mean suppression of questing nymphs.

conclusionWhile some strategies such as chemical acaricides were shown to have greater effectiveness, factors such as social acceptability and resistance, environmental impact, cost, and feasibility should be considered when selecting the most appropriate intervention to maximize the utility of the intervention.

Indexed as

Lyme DiseaseTick ControlAnimalsBorrelia burgdorferiCanadaEuropeHumansTick BitesTicksUnited StatesEffectivenessFeasibilityLyme disease controlMulti-study synthesisSystematic reviewTick controlUtility

Identifiers

PMID40604446
PMCPMC12224580

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.