Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22936993›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2012

Mosquito feeding assays to determine the infectiousness of naturally infected Plasmodium falciparum gametocyte carriers.

Teun Bousema, Rhoel R Dinglasan, Isabelle Morlais, Louis C Gouagna, Travis van Warmerdam, Parfait H Awono-Ambene, Sarah Bonnet, Mouctar Diallo, Mamadou Coulibaly, Timoléon Tchuinkam and 15 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

146 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

25 authors.

Teun BousemaDepartment of Immunity and Infection, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. teun.bousema@lshtm.ac.uk
Rhoel R Dinglasan
Isabelle Morlais
Louis C Gouagna
Travis van Warmerdam
Parfait H Awono-Ambene
Sarah Bonnet
Mouctar Diallo
Mamadou Coulibaly
Timoléon Tchuinkam
Bert Mulder
Geoff Targett
Chris Drakeley
Colin Sutherland
Vincent Robert
Ogobara Doumbo
Yeya Touré
Patricia M Graves
Will Roeffen
Robert Sauerwein
Ashley Birkett
Emily Locke
Merribeth Morin
Yimin Wu
Thomas S Churcher

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the era of malaria elimination and eradication, drug-based and vaccine-based approaches to reduce malaria transmission are receiving greater attention. Such interventions require assays that reliably measure the transmission of Plasmodium from humans to Anopheles mosquitoes.

methodsWE COMPARED TWO COMMONLY USED MOSQUITO FEEDING ASSAY PROCEDURES: direct skin feeding assays and membrane feeding assays. Three conditions under which membrane feeding assays are performed were examined: assays with i) whole blood, ii) blood pellets resuspended with autologous plasma of the gametocyte carrier, and iii) blood pellets resuspended with heterologous control serum.

results930 transmission experiments from Cameroon, The Gambia, Mali and Senegal were included in the analyses. Direct skin feeding assays resulted in higher mosquito infection rates compared to membrane feeding assays (odds ratio 2.39, 95% confidence interval 1.94-2.95) with evident heterogeneity between studies. Mosquito infection rates in membrane feeding assays and direct skin feeding assays were strongly correlated (p<0.0001). Replacing the plasma of the gametocyte donor with malaria naïve control serum resulted in higher mosquito infection rates compared to own plasma (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.68-2.19) while the infectiousness of gametocytes may be reduced during the replacement procedure (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.70).

conclusionsDespite a higher efficiency of direct skin feeding assays, membrane feeding assays appear suitable tools to compare the infectiousness between individuals and to evaluate transmission-reducing interventions. Several aspects of membrane feeding procedures currently lack standardization; this variability makes comparisons between laboratories challenging and should be addressed to facilitate future testing of transmission-reducing interventions.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnimalsAnophelesChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInsect VectorsMalaria, FalciparumMaleMiddle AgedPlasmodium falciparumYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22936993
PMCPMC3425579

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.