ArticleMalaria journal2016
How important is the angle of tilt in the WHO cone bioassay?
Article in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The mini chamber test: a novel bioassay for bioefficacy testing of chlorfenapyr treated nets used in malaria control.Gates open research · 2026Article
- Complete series method (CSM): a convenient method to reduce daily heterogeneity when evaluating the regeneration time (RT) of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs).Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Time of exposure and assessment influence the mortality induced by insecticides against metabolic resistant mosquitoes.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Behavioural responses ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2024Article
- Evaluation of bio-efficacy of field-aged novel long-lasting insecticidal nets (PBO, chlorfenapyr or pyriproxyfen combined with pyrethroid) againstCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2024Article
- Article
- WHO cone bioassay boards with or without holes: relevance for bioassay outcomes in long-lasting insecticidal net studies.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Comparison of cone bioassay estimates at two laboratories with different Anopheles mosquitoes for quality assurance of pyrethroid insecticide-treated nets.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Influence of testing modality on bioefficacy for the evaluation of InterceptorParasites & vectors · 2022Article
- LLIN evaluation in Uganda project (LLINEUP): The fabric integrity, chemical content and bioefficacy of long-lasting insecticidal nets treated with and without piperonyl butoxide across two years of operational use in Uganda.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2022Article
- Effect of Short-Term Heating on Bioefficacy of Deltamethrin-Coated Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2021Article
- Comparing the new Ifakara Ambient Chamber Test with WHO cone and tunnel tests for bioefficacy and non-inferiority testing of insecticide-treated nets.Malaria journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) cone bioassay plays an integral role in the evaluation of the efficacy of long-lasting insecticidal nets as well as insecticides used in indoor residual spraying. The test is used on a variety of treated substrates, such as pieces of bed nets, mud, cement and wood. The cone setup assumes a wide variety of angles under different settings in which it is applied. However, the guidelines provided for the performance of the assay do not specify the angle at which the test must be performed.
methodsLaboratory colonies of Anopheles gambiae Kisumu-1 and Anopheles stephensi STI were tested in the WHO cone bioassay at four different angles (0°, 45°, 60° and 90°) following the WHO guidelines against net pieces of Olyset Plus and Netprotect. The tests were repeated after 20 washes of the nets. Individual mosquitoes were also exposed at 0° and 60° and the amount of time each spent in contact with the net was recorded.
resultsMosquitoes spent more time on the net at 60° as compared to 0° (coefficient = 45.8, 95 % CI 34.6-55.6, p < 0.001) and were more likely to die when the test was done at 45° (OR 3.3, 95 % CI 1.7-6.3, p = 0.001), 60° (OR 3.1, 95 % CI 1.7-5.9, p < 0.001) and 90° (OR 6.0, 95 % CI 1.9-18.5, p = 0.002) as compared to 0°.
conclusionThe angle at which the test is performed significantly affects the amount of time mosquitoes spend resting on the nets, and subsequently mortality. Angle must thus be considered as an important component in the performance of the assay and duly incorporated into the guidelines.
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.