The article assessed whether testing ticks for the tick‑borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) is a useful way to estimate the risk of infection in humans. The study, carried out in Poland and Germany, analyzed more than 16,000 ticks but did not detect the virus in any of them. Based on these results, we concluded that routine testing of ticks is not a reliable indicator of human risk.
This paper marked the conclusion of many years of joint work by Polish and German research teams aimed at developing new approaches to monitoring areas at risk of tick‑borne encephalitis. Because the natural cycle of the virus occurs independently of human activity, the researchers had initially proposed improving surveillance by searching for the virus directly in ticks or small animals, in which the virus can persist for life. Both teams independently attempted to set up such surveillance systems and tested large numbers of ticks collected from well‑defined areas. However, the findings showed that this approach did not provide meaningful information about human risk. As a result, the authors emphasized the need to explore alternative methods—such as systematic testing of wild or domestic animals—to better assess and monitor the risk of tick‑borne encephalitis in humans.