On 6 June 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published updates to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ (EML). Read more here.

Eurosurveillance is on the updated list of the Directory of Open Access Journals and in the SHERPA/RoMEO database. Read more here.

Follow Eurosurveillance on Twitter: @Eurosurveillanc

In this issue

Home Eurosurveillance Weekly Release  2006: Volume 11/ Issue 33 Article 4
Back to Table of Contents

Eurosurveillance, Volume 11, Issue 33, 17 August 2006

Citation style for this article: Pitches DW. Removal of ticks: a review of the literature. Euro Surveill. 2006;11(33):pii=3027. Available online:

Removal of ticks: a review of the literature

DW Pitches (

Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections, London, UK

Eurosurveillance recently reported that travellers who discover ticks attached to them should remove the tick by grasping the mouthpiece with tweezers (forceps) and rotating the tick whilst withdrawing it [1]. Subsequently, readers and a posting to ProMED-mail [2] have pointed out that other guidelines, including those of the World Health Organization [3] and the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [4] do not advise rotating the tick during removal. Yet these guidelines also differ from one another with respect to whether it is advisable to suffocate ticks with paraffin or equivalent. Reasons behind the differing advice and some basic common points shared by all guidance are discussed below.

Anatomy and physiology of feeding ticks
Ticks are arthropod vectors of a number of pathogens that cause potentially serious human diseases such as Lyme borreliosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, tickborne encephalitis, tularaemia and Q fever. A single tick can carry a number of different pathogens [5], leading to atypical presentation of tickborne illness.

Two classes of tick are responsible for disease in humans, hard ticks (family Ixodidae) and soft ticks (family Argasidae), the principle difference being the hard plate or scutum that hard ticks possess. There is a third class of tick, family Nutalliellidae, of which only one species is known, which is not of medical importance [6], Because soft ticks take smaller, quicker blood meals at shorter intervals, they can transmit pathogens much more quickly (within a minute of biting) than hard ticks (hours or days) [6]. However, hard ticks are more common, harder to remove and more likely to transmit disease.

Ticks have a barbed, harpoon-like mouthpiece called a hypostome which they insert into their host to suck blood. Many hard ticks also secrete a cement which further strengthens their attachment. When removing ticks, it is important not to squash the body (which could inject toxins or microbes into the host), break off the mouthpiece or leave cement behind (which could lead to allergic irritation from tick proteins or secondary bacterial infection).

Experimental evidence for tick removal techniques
There is very limited experimental evidence to support most suggested tick removal strategies, and only a few reviews [7,8]. While both mechanical removal and chemical incapacitation have their advocates, experimental evidence suggests that chemical irritants are ineffective at persuading ticks to detach, and risk triggering injection of salivary fluids and possible transmission of disease-causing microbes. In addition, suffocating ticks by smothering them with petroleum jelly is an ineffective method of killing them because they have such a low respiratory rate (only requiring 3-15 breaths per hour) that by the time they die, there may have been sufficient time for pathogens to be transmitted.

One study compared several different techniques for removing ticks [9]. Application of petroleum jelly, fingernail polish, 70% isopropyl alcohol, or a hot kitchen match failed to induce detachment of adult American dog ticks (Dermacentor variabilis). Using forceps or grasping with fingers as close to the skin as possible did remove the ticks. Rotating the tick during removal did not appear more likely to damage the mouthparts than pulling straight out, though twisting the tick was ultimately not recommended, because of the risk of breaking of the mouthparts.

Three commercially available devices were compared to conventional forceps for their effectiveness in removing lone star (Amblyomma americanum (L.)) or American dog ticks (D. variabilis) from laboratory rabbits [10]. It was found that for adult ticks, forceps and a commercial product that grasped the tick were superior to products with a central V-shaped groove that were designed to scoop the tick off. Conversely, removal of nymphs (immature ticks) with forceps tended to leave the mouthparts behind more often than removal with the grooved devices. A variety of other techniques were tested, including fingernail polish, petroleum jelly, a glowing hot match, 70% isopropanol and injection of local anaesthetics (lidocaine, lidocaine with epinephrine, and chloroprocaine). None of these methods initiated self-detachment.

A Spanish study that compared the outcomes of people who removed ticks using forceps and those who used other methods found that people who used forceps were significantly less likely to experience complications, including the skin disease erythema migrans* and secondary bacterial infections [11].

A Dutch study compared the ease of removal and retention of mouthparts using several techniques: applying gasoline, 70% isopropyl alcohol or a hot match, pulling clockwise or pulling straight out with quick or steady even pressure using conventional forceps or ’Tick Solution’ forceps [12]. Chemical methods failed to cause ticks to detach within half an hour, and pulling the ticks straight out was significantly less likely to lead to retained mouthparts than rotational pulling. An American study compared conventional forceps against ’Tick Solution’ forceps and found the conventional forceps to be superior [13].

Nevertheless, at least one company specifically markets a veterinary product that catches the tick in a groove in a plastic device that is then rotated several times. It claims that the rostrum spikes fold into the axis of rotation, facilitating tick removal without the risk of snapping off the hypostome, and provides video evidence of this technique working on the company’s website [14].

Other mechanical techniques have been described, with anecdotal levels of evidence. Lassoing the tick as close to the skin as possible, using a loose knot of cotton thread, such as from clothing, then applying gentle traction, can remove ticks when forceps are not available [15]. Disposable razors have also been suggested [16].

Relatively few studies have been conducted in this area, and those that have been vary with respect to different tick species, different host species and different time periods of tick attachment before removal. When the species of tick is known to be of the soft family, and disease in humans is not endemic in an area, the World Health Organization recommendation of chemical methods of removing ticks may be appropriate [3]. However, since many people, particularly travellers who are not familiar with an area, will not be able to distinguish between different types of tick or know the local prevalence of disease, it seems sensible to recommend always removing ticks by grasping with forceps as close to the skin as possible and pulling straight out to avoid leaving mouthparts behind. There is a clear and simple image that illustrates this at reference 4.

*Correction. This was corrected from 'larva migrans' to 'erythema migrans' at the author's request on 18 August 2006
Eurosurveillance editorial office, 18 August 2006.

  1. Editorial team. Increase in cases of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, Turkey, 2006. Euro Surveill 2006;11(7):E060720.2. (
  2. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever - Turkey (02). In: ProMED-mail [online]. Boston US: International Society for Infectious Diseases, archive no. 20060728.2082, 28 July 2006. (
  3. Ticks. In: Vector control - methods for use by individuals and communities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997. (
  4. Lyme disease. Tick removal. CDC Division of vector borne infectious diseases website. Page last reviewed 20 July 2005. (
  5. Schulze TL, Jordan RA, Schulze CJ, Mixson T, Papero M. Relative encounter frequencies and prevalence of selected Borrelia, Ehrlichia, and Anaplasma infections in Amblyomma americanum and Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) ticks from central New Jersey. J Med Entomol 2005; 42(3):450-6.
  6. Edlow JA. Tick-borne diseases – introduction. Emedicine website. Last updated 24 May 2005. (
  7. Teece S.The straight, slow method may be best for removing ticks. Best evidence topics website. Last modified 13 November 2002. (
  8. Gammons M, Salam G. Tick Removal. Am Fam Physician 2002; 66 (4): 643-646. (
  9. Needham GR. Evaluation of five popular methods for tick removal. Pediatrics 1985; 75(6):997-1002. (
  10. Stewart LR Jr, Burgdorfer W, Needham GR. Evaluation of three commercial tick removal tools. Wilderness Environ Med 1998; 9: 137-142. (
  11. Oteo JA, Martinez de Artola V, Gomez-Cadinanos R, Casas JM, Blanco JR, Rosel L. Evaluation of methods of tick removal in human ixodidiasis [Article in Spanish]. Rev Clin Esp 1996; 196(9):584-7.
  12. De Boer R, van den Bogaard AE. Removal of attached nymphs and adults of Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol 1993; 30(4):748-52.
  13. Bowles DE, McHugh CP, Spradling SL. Evaluation of devices for removing attached Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol 1992; 29(5): 901-902.
  14. O’TOM ® hook or Tick-twister ®. Website ( Accessed 14 August 2006.
  15. Celenza A, Rogers IR. The “knot method” of tick removal. Wilderness Environ Med 2002; 13(2): 181. (
  16. Moehrle M, Rassner G. How to remove ticks? Dermatology 2002; 204(4): 303-304

back to top

Back to Table of Contents

The publisher’s policy on data collection and use of cookies.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by authors contributing to Eurosurveillance do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) or the editorial team or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated. Neither ECDC nor any person acting on behalf of ECDC is responsible for the use that might be made of the information in this journal. The information provided on the Eurosurveillance site is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Our website does not host any form of commercial advertisement. Except where otherwise stated, all manuscripts published after 1 January 2016 will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. You are free to share and adapt the material, but you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

Eurosurveillance [ISSN] - ©2007-2016. All rights reserved

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.