Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26731524›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

The Effect of Indoor Residual Spraying on the Prevalence of Malaria Parasite Infection, Clinical Malaria and Anemia in an Area of Perennial Transmission and Moderate Coverage of Insecticide Treated Nets in Western Kenya.

John E Gimnig, Peter Otieno, Vincent Were, Doris Marwanga, Daisy Abong'o, Ryan Wiegand, John Williamson, Adam Wolkon, Ying Zhou, M Nabie Bayoh and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

John E GimnigDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Peter OtienoCentre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Vincent WereCentre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Doris MarwangaCentre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Daisy Abong'oCentre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Ryan WiegandDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
John WilliamsonDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Adam WolkonDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Ying ZhouEck Institute for Global Health, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.
M Nabie BayohCentre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Neil F LoboEck Institute for Global Health, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.
Kayla LasersonDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Simon KariukiCentre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Mary J HamelDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Kenya Medical Research Institute · KECenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USCenter for Global Health · USUniversity of Notre Dame · USDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInsecticide treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) have been scaled up for malaria prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there are few studies on the benefit of implementing IRS in areas with moderate to high coverage of ITNs. We evaluated the impact of an IRS program on malaria related outcomes in western Kenya, an area of intense perennial malaria transmission and moderate ITN coverage (55-65% use of any net the previous night).

methodsThe Kenya Division of Malaria Control, with support from the US President's Malaria Initiative, conducted IRS in one lowland endemic district with moderate coverage of ITNs. Surveys were conducted in the IRS district and a neighboring district before IRS, after one round of IRS in July-Sept 2008 and after a second round of IRS in April-May 2009. IRS was conducted with pyrethroid insecticides. At each survey, 30 clusters were selected for sampling and within each cluster, 12 compounds were randomly selected. The primary outcomes measured in all residents of selected compounds included malaria parasitemia, clinical malaria (P. falciparum infection plus history of fever) and anemia (Hb<8) of all residents in randomly selected compounds. At each survey round, individuals from the IRS district were matched to those from the non-IRS district using propensity scores and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed based on the matched dataset.

resultsAt baseline and after one round of IRS, there were no differences between the two districts in the prevalence of malaria parasitemia, clinical malaria or anemia. After two rounds of IRS, the prevalence of malaria parasitemia was 6.4% in the IRS district compared to 16.7% in the comparison district (OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.22-0.59, p<0.001). The prevalence of clinical malaria was also lower in the IRS district (1.8% vs. 4.9%, OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.20-0.68, p = 0.001). The prevalence of anemia was lower in the IRS district but only in children under 5 years of age (2.8% vs. 9.3%, OR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.13-0.71, p = 0.006). Multivariate models incorporating both IRS and ITNs indicated that both had an impact on malaria parasitemia and clinical malaria but the independent effect of ITNs was reduced in the district that had received two rounds of IRS. There was no statistically significant independent effect of ITNs on the prevalence of anemia in any age group.

conclusionsBoth IRS and ITNs are effective tools for reducing malaria burden and when implemented in an area of moderate to high transmission with moderate ITN coverage, there may be an added benefit of IRS. The value of adding ITNs to IRS is less clear as their benefits may be masked by IRS. Additional monitoring of malaria control programs that implement ITNs and IRS concurrently is encouraged to better understand how to maximize the benefits of both interventions, particularly in the context of increasing pyrethroid resistance.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAerosolsAnemiaChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeographyHost-Parasite InteractionsHousingHumansInsecticidesInsecticide-Treated BednetsKenyaLogistic ModelsMalaria, FalciparumAerosolsInsecticidesPyrethrins

Identifiers

PMID26731524
PMCPMC4701193
OpenAlexW2231330369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.