Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24998677›Full record

Trial reportMalaria journal2014

A phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy, fabric integrity and community acceptance of Netprotect using a recommended long-lasting insecticidal net as positive control.

Karel Van Roey, Siv Sovannaroth, Tho Sochantha, Mao Srey Touch, Olivier Pigeon, Vincent Sluydts, Lies Durnez, Marc Coosemans

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Malaria journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Karel Van Roey
Siv Sovannaroth
Tho Sochantha
Mao Srey Touch
Olivier Pigeon
Vincent Sluydts
Lies Durnez
Marc CoosemansDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine of Antwerp, Nationalestraat 155, B-2000 Antwerpen, Belgium. mcoosemans@itg.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evaluation of new long-lasting insecticidal bed nets (LLINs) is coordinated by the WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES). In 2007, Netprotect® was granted WHOPES interim recommendation after Phase I and II evaluations. Present study evaluates Netprotect in a Phase III trial in rural Cambodia.

methodsA randomized, prospective longitudinal study design was used to assess the performance of Netprotect over a period of three years, using conventionally-treated nets and a WHOPES recommended LLIN (PermaNet 2.0) as positive controls. The primary outcomes were the physical integrity, insecticide content and cone bioassay performance using.

resultsThe baseline deltamethrin concentration of 43% of Netprotect nets were below the tolerance limit while 27% of PermaNet 2.0 nets were above the target dose limits. By 36 months Netprotect retained 35% while PermaNet 2.0 retained 49% of baseline insecticide dose. Moreover the proportion of the inactive deltamethrin R-alpha isomer in the Netprotect nets was 33% at the baseline and increased to 69% after three years while it was low and almost constant for PermaNet® 2.0 (3-7%). Only 71% of Netprotect met the WHO criteria for bio-efficacy after three years while at least 80% is required. Moreover Netprotect nets failed for the WHOPES criteria after 12 and 24 months. The reference LLIN met the WHOPES criteria throughout the study. Over the entire three years the reference LLIN did obtain significant higher mosquito mortality than Netprotect. The physical integrity was based on the proportionate hole index and after three years, 25% of Netprotect and 30% of PermaNet 2.0 were in a mediocre or poor state.

conclusionNetprotect did not meet the minimum WHO criteria for bio-efficacy after 12, 24 and 36 months. The use of a reference LLIN as positive control was helpful for data interpretation. However, for future three-year studies, it is essential that before initiating any study nets should be checked for their specifications and this for both the candidate LLIN as well as for the reference LLIN. Moreover, to improve the accuracy of the success rate of the candidate LLIN more nets should be tested for their bio-efficacy at the end of the trial.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsCambodiaChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInsecticide-Treated BednetsLongitudinal StudiesMalaria

Identifiers

PMID24998677
PMCPMC4105388

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.