Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25811956›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2015

Costs of using "tiny targets" to control Glossina fuscipes fuscipes, a vector of gambiense sleeping sickness in Arua District of Uganda.

Alexandra P M Shaw, Inaki Tirados, Clement T N Mangwiro, Johan Esterhuizen, Michael J Lehane, Stephen J Torr, Vanja Kovacic

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  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

7 authors.

Alexandra P M ShawDivision of Pathway Medicine and Centre for Infectious Diseases, School of Biomedical Sciences, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; AP Consultants, Walworth Business Park, Andover, United Kingdom.
Inaki TiradosVector Biology Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Clement T N MangwiroBindura University of Science Education, Department of Animal Science, Bindura, Zimbabwe.
Johan EsterhuizenVector Biology Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Michael J LehaneVector Biology Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Stephen J TorrVector Biology Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Vanja KovacicVector Biology Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo evaluate the relative effectiveness of tsetse control methods, their costs need to be analysed alongside their impact on tsetse populations. Very little has been published on the costs of methods specifically targeting human African trypanosomiasis. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsIn northern Uganda, a 250 km2 field trial was undertaken using small (0.5 X 0.25 m) insecticide-treated targets ("tiny targets"). Detailed cost recording accompanied every phase of the work. Costs were calculated for this operation as if managed by the Ugandan vector control services: removing purely research components of the work and applying local salaries. This calculation assumed that all resources are fully used, with no spare capacity. The full cost of the operation was assessed at USD 85.4 per km2, of which USD 55.7 or 65.2% were field costs, made up of three component activities (target deployment: 34.5%, trap monitoring: 10.6% and target maintenance: 20.1%). The remaining USD 29.7 or 34.8% of the costs were for preliminary studies and administration (tsetse surveys: 6.0%, sensitisation of local populations: 18.6% and office support: 10.2%). Targets accounted for only 12.9% of the total cost, other important cost components were labour (24.1%) and transport (34.6%). DISCUSSION: Comparison with the updated cost of historical HAT vector control projects and recent estimates indicates that this work represents a major reduction in cost levels. This is attributed not just to the low unit cost of tiny targets but also to the organisation of delivery, using local labour with bicycles or motorcycles. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken, investigating key prices and assumptions. It is believed that these costs are generalizable to other HAT foci, although in more remote areas, with denser vegetation and fewer people, costs would increase, as would be the case for other tsetse control techniques.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansInsect ControlInsecticidesInsect VectorsTrypanosomiasis, AfricanTsetse FliesUgandaInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID25811956
PMCPMC4374750

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.