ReviewVector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.)2015
Considerations for the use of human participants in vector biology research: a tool for investigators and regulators.
Review in Vector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review comparing the performance of alternative blackfly (Simulium) trapping methods against the standard human landing catch (HLC) for onchocerciasis surveillance.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Which trap is best? Alternatives to outdoor human landing catches for malaria vector surveillance: a meta-analysis.Malaria journal · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Nationally representative programmatic surveillance of mosquito and human behaviours that influence human exposure to malaria transmission and the impact of vector control across Tanzania.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Experimental hut resting and entrance behaviour of Anopheles darlingi from Zungarococha, a malaria endemic community in Loreto, Northern Peruvian Amazon.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Intra-vector infection dynamics challenge how to model the extrinsic incubation period for major arboviruses: dengue, Zika, and chikungunya.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Article
- A simple, field-applicable method to increase the infectivity of wild isolates of Plasmodium falciparum to mosquito vectors.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- Trends of Mansonia (Diptera, Culicidae, Mansoniini) in Porto Velho: Seasonal patterns and meteorological influences.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the solar-powered Silver Bullet 2.1 (Lumin 8) light trap for sampling malaria vectors in western Kenya.Malaria journal · 2023Article
- Do it yourself: fabricating and evaluating a mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) blood-feeding device to replace a commercial option.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2023Article
- Effect of ultraviolet LED and trap height on catches of host-seeking anopheline mosquitoes by using a low-cost passive light trap in northeast Brazil.Parasitology research · 2023Article
- Human biting mosquitoes and implications for West Nile virus transmission.Parasites & vectors · 2023Article
- Naturally acquired antibody response toFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Methods for Collecting Mosquitoes (Culicidae: Diptera) in Canopy and Ground Strata in the Brazilian Savanna.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Review
- A statistical calibration tool for methods used to sample outdoor-biting mosquitoes.Parasites & vectors · 2022Article
- Blood feeding habits of mosquitoes: hardly a bite in South America.Parasitology research · 2022Review
- The human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) is an efficient sampling device for exophagic Anopheles arabiensis within irrigated lands in southern Malawi.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A thorough search of the existing literature has revealed that there are currently no published recommendations or guidelines for the interpretation of US regulations on the use of human participants in vector biology research (VBR). An informal survey of vector biologists has indicated that issues related to human participation in vector research have been largely debated by academic, national, and local Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the countries where the research is being conducted, and that interpretations and subsequent requirements made by these IRBs have varied widely. This document is intended to provide investigators and corresponding scientific and ethical review committee members an introduction to VBR methods involving human participation and the legal and ethical framework in which such studies are conducted with a focus on US Federal Regulations. It is also intended to provide a common perspective for guiding researchers, IRB members, and other interested parties (i.e., public health officials conducting routine entomological surveillance) in the interpretation of human subjects regulations pertaining to VBR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.