SynthesisExperimental & applied acarology2026
Prevalence and associated factors of Anaplasma, Rickettsia, and Coxiella-related bacteria in ticks in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Experimental & applied acarology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tick-borne diseases (TBDs) represent an increasing threat to human and animal health worldwide, with several bacterial pathogens detected in or maintained by tick populations. However, a comprehensive synthesis of the prevalence of Anaplasma, Rickettsia, and Coxiella-related bacteria and their associated factors in ticks in China remains limited. This study aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of these pathogens and evaluate epidemiological and methodological factors associated with pathogen detection. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Six databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and September 2025. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using R to estimate pooled prevalence, and subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate potential factors associated with pathogen detection. A total of 203 studies were included. The pooled prevalence of Anaplasma, Rickettsia, and Coxiella-related bacteria in ticks was 6%, 16%, and 9%, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that region, pathogen species, tick species, and detection method were significantly associated with variation in reported prevalence. Regional patterns differed among the three bacterial groups, suggesting pathogen-specific geographic heterogeneity. For Anaplasma, Anaplasma ovis and Anaplasma phagocytophilum were predominant, and relatively high detection rates were observed in Haemaphysalis longicornis and Ixodes persulcatus. For Rickettsia, spotted fever group rickettsiae and Rickettsia raoultii were commonly detected, particularly in Dermacentor nuttalli and Dermacentor silvarum. Coxiella-related bacteria included pathogenic Coxiella burnetii, unspecified Coxiella spp., and Coxiella-like endosymbionts, which should be interpreted separately because of their different biological and epidemiological significance. Conventional PCR was the most widely used detection method. These findings highlight regional heterogeneity and distinct pathogen-tick species associations in tick-borne bacterial infections in China. Strengthening surveillance of frequently reported pathogen-tick combinations and standardized molecular diagnostics will improve early warning and control of tick-borne diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42496787What 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.