Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21229263›Full record

ReviewParasitology research2011

Malaria vector control: from past to future.

Kamaraju Raghavendra, Tapan K Barik, B P Niranjan Reddy, Poonam Sharma, Aditya P Dash

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Parasitology research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
32.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 256 citations in OpenAlex.

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

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kamaraju RaghavendraVector Control Division, National Institute of Malaria Research (ICMR), Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi, 110 077, India. kamarajur2000@yahoo.com
Tapan K Barik
B P Niranjan Reddy
Poonam Sharma
Aditya P Dash
National Institute of Malaria Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malaria is one of the most common vector-borne diseases widespread in the tropical and subtropical regions. Despite considerable success of malaria control programs in the past, malaria still continues as a major public health problem in several countries. Vector control is an essential part for reducing malaria transmission and became less effective in recent years, due to many technical and administrative reasons, including poor or no adoption of alternative tools. Of the different strategies available for vector control, the most successful are indoor residual spraying and insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), including long-lasting ITNs and materials. Earlier DDT spray has shown spectacular success in decimating disease vectors but resulted in development of insecticide resistance, and to control the resistant mosquitoes, organophosphates, carbamates, and synthetic pyrethroids were introduced in indoor residual spraying with needed success but subsequently resulted in the development of widespread multiple insecticide resistance in vectors. Vector control in many countries still use insecticides in the absence of viable alternatives. Few developments for vector control, using ovitraps, space spray, biological control agents, etc., were encouraging when used in limited scale. Likewise, recent introduction of safer vector control agents, such as insect growth regulators, biocontrol agents, and natural plant products have yet to gain the needed scale of utility for vector control. Bacterial pesticides are promising and are effective in many countries. Environmental management has shown sufficient promise for vector control and disease management but still needs advocacy for inter-sectoral coordination and sometimes are very work-intensive. The more recent genetic manipulation and sterile insect techniques are under development and consideration for use in routine vector control and for these, standardized procedures and methods are available but need thorough understanding of biology, ethical considerations, and sufficiently trained manpower for implementation being technically intensive methods. All the methods mentioned in the review that are being implemented or proposed for implementation needs effective inter-sectoral coordination and community participation. The latest strategy is evolution-proof insecticides that include fungal biopesticides, Wolbachia, and Denso virus that essentially manipulate the life cycle of the mosquitoes were found effective but needs more research. However, for effective vector control, integrated vector management methods, involving use of combination of effective tools, is needed and is also suggested by Global Malaria Control Strategy. This review article raises issues associated with the present-day vector control strategies and state opportunities with a focus on ongoing research and recent advances to enable to sustain the gains achieved so far.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrug ResistanceHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyInsecticidesMalariaMosquito ControlPest Control, BiologicalInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID21229263
OpenAlexW2084418503

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.