Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28699558›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Beyond efficacy in water containers: Temephos and household entomological indices in six studies between 2005 and 2013 in Managua, Nicaragua.

Jorge Arosteguí, Josefina Coloma, Carlos Hernández-Alvarez, Harold Suazo-Laguna, Angel Balmaseda, Eva Harris, Neil Andersson, Robert J Ledogar

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Seroprevalence, risk factor, and spatial analyses of Zika virus infection after the 2016 epidemic in Managua, Nicaragua.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Jorge ArosteguíCIET International, Managua, Nicaragua. ciet@cablenet.com.ni.
Josefina ColomaDivision of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Carlos Hernández-AlvarezCIET International, Managua, Nicaragua.
Harold Suazo-LagunaCIET International, Managua, Nicaragua.
Angel BalmasedaCentro Nacional de Diagnóstico y Referencia, Ministerio de Salud, Managua, Nicaragua.
Eva HarrisDivision of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Neil AnderssonCentro de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales, Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico.
Robert J LedogarCIET International, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA cluster-randomized controlled trial of community mobilisation for dengue prevention in Mexico and Nicaragua reported, as a secondary finding, a higher risk of dengue virus infection in households where inspectors found temephos in water containers. Data from control sites in the preceding pilot study and the Nicaragua trial arm provided six time points (2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011, 2012, 2013) to examine potentially protective effects of temephos on entomological indices under every day conditions of the national vector control programme.

methodsThree household entomological indicators for Aedes aegypti breeding were Household Index, Households with pupae, and Pupae per Person. The primary exposure indicator at the six time points was temephos identified physically during the entomological inspection. A stricter criterion for exposure at four time points included households reporting temephos application during the last 30 days and temephos found on inspection. Using generalized linear mixed modelling with cluster as a random effect and temephos as a potential fixed effect, at each time point we examined possible determinants of lower entomological indicators.

resultsBetween 2005 and 2013, temephos exposure was not significantly associated with a reduction in any of the three entomological indices, whether or not the exposure indicator included timing of temephos application. In six of 18 multivariate models at the six time points, temephos exposure was associated with higher entomological indices; in these models, we could exclude any protective effect of temephos with 95% confidence.

conclusionOur failure to demonstrate a significant protective association between temephos and entomological indices might be explained by several factors. These include ecological adaptability of the vector, resistance of Aedes to the pesticide, operational deficiencies of vector control programme, or a decrease in preventive actions by households resulting from a false sense of protection fostered by the centralized government programme using chemical agents. Whatever the explanation, the implication is that temephos affords less protection under routine field conditions than expected from its efficacy under experimental conditions.

trial registrationISRCTN 27581154 .

Indexed as

WaterWater SupplyAedesAnimalsDengueDengue VirusFamily CharacteristicsHumansInsecticidesInsect VectorsMosquito ControlNicaraguaPilot ProjectsTemefosInsecticidesTemefosWaterAedes aegyptiCamino VerdeClustersDengue preventionTemephos

Identifiers

PMID28699558
PMCPMC5506593

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.