Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21036822›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2010

Social acceptability and durability of two different house screening interventions against exposure to malaria vectors, Plasmodium falciparum infection, and anemia in children in the Gambia, West Africa.

Matthew J Kirby, Pateh Bah, Caroline O H Jones, Ann H Kelly, Momodou Jasseh, Steve W Lindsay

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Matthew J KirbyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, United Kingdom. mattkirby.tanga@gmail.com
Pateh Bah
Caroline O H Jones
Ann H Kelly
Momodou Jasseh
Steve W Lindsay

Funding

Medical Research Council G0400031Medical Research Council MC_UP_A900_1123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The social acceptability and durability of two house screening interventions were addressed using focus group discussions, questionnaires, indoor climate measurements, and durability surveys. Participants recognized that screening stopped mosquitoes (79-96%) and other insects (86-98%) entering their houses. These and other benefits were appreciated by significantly more recipients of full screening than users of screened ceilings. Full screened houses were 0.26°C hotter at night (P = 0.05) than houses with screened ceilings and 0.51°C (P < 0.001) hotter than houses with no screening (28.43°C), though only 9% of full screened house users and 17% of screened ceiling users complained about the heat. Although 71% of screened doors and 85% of ceilings had suffered some damage after 12 months, the average number of holes of any size was < 5 for doors and < 7 for ceilings. In conclusion, house screening is a well-appreciated and durable vector control tool.

Indexed as

AnemiaAnimalsChildFocus GroupsGambiaHousingHumansInsecticidesMalaria, FalciparumMosquito ControlPlasmodium falciparumResidence CharacteristicsRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesTemperatureInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID21036822
PMCPMC2963954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.