ArticleEpidemiology and infection2026
Results from an enhanced surveillance study of laboratory-confirmed acute Lyme disease cases in England between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In England, Lyme disease (LD) surveillance is based on laboratory-confirmed cases. However, clinical and epidemiological characteristics of these cases are limited; therefore, we conducted an enhanced surveillance study of acute LD in England. Enhanced data were collected through an online questionnaire sent to all laboratory-confirmed acute cases of LD resident in England, with specimen dates between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024. The analysis included data from 511/1086 cases. Respondents were representative of age, sex, and region of national LD trends. A total of 57.3% of the respondents reported that they did not realize that they had been bitten by a tick. Among those who remembered a tick bite, 66.1% reported bites close to their home and only 10.6% happened abroad, and 28.5% reported that the tick bite could have occurred in a garden. Most respondents were residents of areas of higher socioeconomic status. Erythema migrans was noted by 70.5% of the respondents. It is important to raise awareness among both patients and clinicians that ticks can be found in urban and suburban parks and gardens, as well as ensuring that wildlife initiatives to increase biodiversity include information on tick prevention and tick checks.
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.