You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Best evidence topic reports
How to remove a tick
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 29 April 2016
    Parochialism based Medicine

    Dear Editor

    Teece and Stewart present a "Best Evidence Topic" on the removal of ticks.[1] Rerunning their Medline search I found another study. Published in a Spanish journal, it was overlooked by Teece and Stewart who seemed to have limited themselves to English language publications only. This study has got an English abstract available on Medline.[2]

    Many European Union doctors work even in district gene...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 29 April 2016
    We'd still prefer to pull.
    • Stewart C Teece, Clinical Research Fellow
    • Other Contributors:
      • Ian WF Crawford

    Dear Editor

    Having already recieved correspondence via the BestBETs website regarding various writer's preferred method of tick removal it would seem that applying an evidence base to the subject was not as laughable as our work colleagues first thought.

    With reference to the De Boer paper,[1] although the authors felt that rotation was justified by their results, these figures can equally be applied to...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 29 April 2016
    Freezing ticks
    • Kevin Maguire, Specialist Registrar
    • Other Contributors:
      • Mr. Oran Kelly ( S/N RVH A/E)

    Dear Editor

    We read with interest your article on tick removal and agree with Mr McGlone in his assessment of the evidence as presented and feel that rotation is indeed the best method for tick removal. We also feel that a useful practical point to raise is that the use of Ethyl Chloride to freeze the body of the tick and crystallise its stomach contents will reduce the risk of regurgitation during removal.

    ...
    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 29 April 2016
    Rotate don't pull

    Dear Editor

    Living in a tick endemic area I have already researched this topic, so I was surprised on reading the "clinical bottom line".

    De Boer [1] and his co-authors state, "When the tick is removed by pulling without rotation, large portions of tick tissue (possibly containing pathogens) often are left behind in the skin. Pulling also applies more pressure on the tick. We therefore recommend rotation ra...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 29 April 2016
    Thoughts on tick removal

    Dear Editor

    I have some experience in the removal of ticks. Not on humans but on dogs, during the spring in particular almost weekly.

    I use a couple of drops of 'Frontline' (a household flee spray) to kill the tick, and then remove it with a small curved hook device with a 'V' shaped notch (available at vets). I have 100 % success in removing ticks with their mouth parts intact with this method.

    Th...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.