Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22166144›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2011

Larval source management for malaria control in Africa: myths and reality.

Ulrike Fillinger, Steven W Lindsay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.2field-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

146 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 287 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mosquito larval source management for controlling malaria.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Field evaluation of SumiLarvMalaria journal · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

86 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ulrike FillingerDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. ulrike.fillinger@lshtm.ac.uk
Steven W Lindsay
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology · KELondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Studying the oviposition of Anopheles gambiae: the development of novel tools forR01AI082537 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM · PI LINDSAY, STEVE · 2009 to 2013
$2.4M
NIAID NIH HHS 1R01AI082537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As malaria declines in many African countries there is a growing realization that new interventions need to be added to the front-line vector control tools of long-lasting impregnated nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) that target adult mosquitoes indoors. Larval source management (LSM) provides the dual benefits of not only reducing numbers of house-entering mosquitoes, but, importantly, also those that bite outdoors. Large-scale LSM was a highly effective method of malaria control in the first half of the twentieth century, but was largely disbanded in favour of IRS with DDT. Today LSM continues to be used in large-scale mosquito abatement programmes in North America and Europe, but has only recently been tested in a few trials of malaria control in contemporary Africa. The results from these trials show that hand-application of larvicides can reduce transmission by 70-90% in settings where mosquito larval habitats are defined but is largely ineffectual where habitats are so extensive that not all of them can be covered on foot, such as areas that experience substantial flooding. Importantly recent evidence shows that LSM can be an effective method of malaria control, especially when combined with LLINs. Nevertheless, there are a number of misconceptions or even myths that hamper the advocacy for LSM by leading international institutions and the uptake of LSM by Malaria Control Programmes. Many argue that LSM is not feasible in Africa due to the high number of small and temporary larval habitats for Anopheles gambiae that are difficult to find and treat promptly. Reference is often made to the Ross-Macdonald model to reinforce the view that larval control is ineffective. This paper challenges the notion that LSM cannot be successfully used for malaria control in African transmission settings by highlighting historical and recent successes, discussing its potential in an integrated vector management approach working towards malaria elimination and critically reviewing the most common arguments that are used against the adoption of LSM.

Indexed as

AfricaAnimalsAnophelesDDTDisease EradicationEcosystemHumansInsecticidesInsecticide-Treated BednetsInsect VectorsLarvaMalariaMosquito ControlProgram EvaluationDDTInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID22166144
PMCPMC3273449
OpenAlexW2160957670

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.