Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28339462›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Safety of a topical insect repellent (picaridin) during community mass use for malaria control in rural Cambodia.

Somony Heng, Vincent Sluydts, Lies Durnez, Vanna Mean, Koh Polo, Sochantha Tho, Marc Coosemans, Johan van Griensven

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Topical repellents for malaria prevention.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Somony HengNational Center for Parasitology, Entomology and Malaria Control, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Vincent SluydtsInstitute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Lies DurnezInstitute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Vanna MeanNational Center for Parasitology, Entomology and Malaria Control, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Koh PoloBanlong Referral Hospital, Ban Lung City, Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia.
Sochantha ThoNational Center for Parasitology, Entomology and Malaria Control, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Marc CoosemansInstitute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Johan van GriensvenInstitute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Instituut voor Tropische Geneeskunde · BECambodia National Malaria Center · KHUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile community distribution of topical repellents has been proposed as an additional malaria control intervention, the safety of this intervention at the population level remains poorly evaluated. We describe the safety of mass distribution of the picaridin repellent during a cluster-randomised trial in rural Cambodia in 2012-2013.

methodsThe repellent was distributed among 57 intervention villages with around 25,000 inhabitants by a team of village distributors. Information on individual adverse events, reported by phone by the village distributors, was obtained through home visits. Information on perceived side effects, reported at the family level, was obtained during two-weekly bottle exchange. Adverse events were classified as adverse reactions (events likely linked to the repellent), cases of repellent abuse and events not related to the repellent use, and classified as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

findingsOf the 41 adverse events notified by phone by the village distributors, there were 22 adverse reactions, 11 cases of repellent abuse (6 accidental, 5 suicide attempts) and 8 non-related events. All adverse reactions were mild, occurred in the first few months of use, and mainly manifested as skin conditions. Of the 11 cases of abuse, 2 were moderate and 2 life-threatening. All cases with adverse reactions and repellent abuse recovered completely. 20% of families reported perceived side effects, mainly itching, headache, dizziness and bad smell, but few discontinued repellent use.

conclusionsAdverse reactions and abuse during mass use of picaridin were uncommon and generally mild, supporting the safety of the picaridin repellent for malaria control.

Indexed as

CambodiaDizzinessHeadacheHumansInsect RepellentsMosquito ControlPiperidinesRural PopulationTreatment OutcomeInsect RepellentspicaridinPiperidines

Identifiers

PMID28339462
PMCPMC5365103
OpenAlexW2600788100

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.