Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28628653›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

Esperanza Window Traps for the collection of anthropophilic blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in Uganda and Tanzania.

Adam Hendy, Vincent Sluydts, Taylor Tushar, Jacobus De Witte, Patrick Odonga, Denis Loum, Michael Nyaraga, Thomson Lakwo, Jean-Claude Dujardin, Rory Post and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Identification of Human-Derived Attractants toThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Onchocerciasis Elimination: Progress and Challenges.Research and reports in tropical medicine · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Adam HendyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8082-6352
Vincent SluydtsEvolutionary Ecology Group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Taylor TusharDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jacobus De WitteDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Patrick OdongaVector Control Division, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Denis LoumVector Control Division, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Michael NyaragaVector Control Division, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Thomson LakwoVector Control Division, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Jean-Claude DujardinDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Rory PostDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Akili KalingaNational Institute for Medical Research, Tukuyu Research Centre, Tukuyu, Tanzania.
Richard EchoduFaculty of Science, Gulu University, Gulu, Uganda.
Ministry of Health · UGInstituut voor Tropische Geneeskunde · BELondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBGulu University · UGNational Institute for Medical Research · TZUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an increasing need to evaluate the impact of chemotherapeutic and vector-based interventions as onchocerciasis affected countries work towards eliminating the disease. The Esperanza Window Trap (EWT) provides a possible alternative to human landing collections (HLCs) for the collection of anthropophilic blackflies, yet it is not known whether current designs will prove effective for onchocerciasis vectors throughout sub-Saharan Africa. EWTs were deployed for 41 days in northern Uganda and south eastern Tanzania where different Simulium damnosum sibling species are responsible for disease transmission. The relative efficacy of EWTs and HLCs was compared, and responses of host-seeking blackflies to odour baits, colours, and yeast-produced CO2 were investigated. Blue EWTs baited with CO2 and worn socks collected 42.3% (2,393) of the total S. damnosum s.l. catch in northern Uganda. Numbers were comparable with those collected by HLCs (32.1%, 1,817), and higher than those collected on traps baited with CO2 and BG-Lure (25.6%, 1,446), a synthetic human attractant. Traps performed less well for the collection of S. damnosum s.l. in Tanzania where HLCs (72.5%, 2,432) consistently outperformed both blue (16.8%, 563) and black (10.7%, 360) traps baited with CO2 and worn socks. HLCs (72.3%, 361) also outperformed sock-baited (6.4%, 32) and BG-Lure-baited (21.2%, 106) traps for the collection of anthropophilic Simulium bovis in northern Uganda. Contrasting blackfly distributions were observed on traps in Uganda and Tanzania, indicating differences in behaviour in each area. The success of EWT collections of S. damnosum s.l. in northern Uganda was not replicated in Tanzania, or for the collection of anthropophilic S. bovis. Further research to improve the understanding of behavioural responses of vector sibling species to traps and their attractants should be encouraged.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorAnimalsEntomologyHumansPheromonesSimuliidaeTanzaniaUgandainsect attractantsPheromones

Identifiers

PMID28628653
PMCPMC5491316
OpenAlexW2633408419

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.