Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21838903›Full record

Trial reportParasites & vectors2011

The importance of considering community-level effects when selecting insecticidal malaria vector products.

Gerry F Killeen, Fredros O Okumu, Raphael N'Guessan, Marc Coosemans, Adedapo Adeogun, Sam Awolola, Josiane Etang, Roch K Dabiré, Vincent Corbel

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in Parasites & vectors, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Population Dynamics ofVector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.) · 2019
    Article
  11. Genetic structure ofTropical medicine and health · 2019
    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

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

9 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Gerry F KilleenIfakara Health Institute, Biomedical & Environmental Thematic Group, PO Box 53, Ifakara, Morogoro, United Republic of Tanzania. gkilleen@ihi.or.tz
Fredros O Okumu
Raphael N'Guessan
Marc Coosemans
Adedapo Adeogun
Sam Awolola
Josiane Etang
Roch K Dabiré
Vincent Corbel
Nigerian Institute of Medical Research · NGInstitut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé · BFInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement · BJLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBOrganisation de Coordination pour la lutte contre les Endémies en Afrique Centrale · CMUniversity of Antwerp · BEUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInsecticide treatment of nets, curtains or walls and ceilings of houses represent the primary means for malaria prevention worldwide. Direct personal protection of individuals and households arises from deterrent and insecticidal activities which divert or kill mosquitoes before they can feed. However, at high coverage, community-level reductions of mosquito density and survival prevent more transmission exposure than the personal protection acquired by using a net or living in a sprayed house.

methodsA process-explicit simulation of malaria transmission was applied to results of 4 recent Phase II experimental hut trials comparing a new mosaic long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) which combines deltamethrin and piperonyl butoxide with another LLIN product by the same manufacturer relying on deltamethrin alone.

resultsDirect estimates of mean personal protection against insecticide-resistant vectors in Vietnam, Cameroon, Burkina Faso and Benin revealed no clear advantage for combination LLINs over deltamethrin-only LLINs (P = 0.973) unless both types of nets were extensively washed (Relative mean entomologic inoculation rate (EIR) ± standard error of the mean (SEM) for users of combination nets compared to users of deltamethrin only nets = 0.853 ± 0.056, P = 0.008). However, simulations of impact at high coverage (80% use) predicted consistently better impact for the combination net across all four sites (Relative mean EIR ± SEM in communities with combination nets, compared with those using deltamethrin only nets = 0.613 ± 0.076, P < 0.001), regardless of whether the nets were washed or not (P = 0.467). Nevertheless, the degree of advantage obtained with the combination varied substantially between sites and their associated resistant vector populations.

conclusionProcess-explicit simulations of community-level protection, parameterized using locally-relevant experimental hut studies, should be explicitly considered when choosing vector control products for large-scale epidemiological trials or public health programme procurement, particularly as growing insecticide resistance necessitates the use of multiple active ingredients.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnophelesHumansInsecticidesInsecticide-Treated BednetsInsect VectorsMalariaMosquito ControlMosquito NetsResidence CharacteristicsVietnamInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID21838903
PMCPMC3189155
OpenAlexW2132252581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.