Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28873425›Full record

Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

Control of Phlebotomus argentipes (Diptera: Psychodidae) sand fly in Bangladesh: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

Rajib Chowdhury, Shyla Faria, M Mamun Huda, Vashkar Chowdhury, Narayan Prosad Maheswary, Dinesh Mondal, Shireen Akhter, Sakila Akter, Rajaul Karim Khan, Shah Golam Nabi and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

15 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Rajib ChowdhuryNational Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM), Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8128-9832
Shyla FariaInternational Centre for Diarrhoea Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
M Mamun HudaInternational Centre for Diarrhoea Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Vashkar ChowdhuryDepartment of Statistics, Dhaka College, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Narayan Prosad MaheswaryNational Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM), Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Dinesh MondalInternational Centre for Diarrhoea Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Shireen AkhterNational Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM), Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Sakila AkterNational Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM), Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Rajaul Karim KhanDirectorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Shah Golam NabiMugda Medical College, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Axel KroegerSpecial Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Daniel ArgawWorld Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Jorge AlvarDrugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi), Geneva, Switzerland.
Aditya Prasad DashCentral University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur, India.
Qamar BanuAsian University for Women, Chittatong, Bangladesh.
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDAsian University for Women · BDCentral University of Tamil Nadu · INComilla Medical College · BDDhaka University of Engineering & Technology · BDDirectorate General of Health Services · BDDrugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative · CHUniversity of Freiburg · DEWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA number of studies on visceral leishmaniasis (VL) vector control have been conducted during the past decade, sometimes came to very different conclusion. The present study on a large sample investigated different options which are partially unexplored including: (1) indoor residual spraying (IRS) with alpha cypermethrin 5WP; (2) long lasting insecticide impregnated bed-net (LLIN); (3) impregnation of local bed-nets with slow release insecticide K-O TAB 1-2-3 (KOTAB); (4) insecticide spraying in potential breeding sites outside of house using chlorpyrifos 20EC (OUT) and different combinations of the above.

methodsThe study was a cluster randomized controlled trial where 3089 houses from 11 villages were divided into 10 sections, each section with 6 clusters and each cluster having approximately 50 houses. Based on vector density (males plus females) during baseline survey, the 60 clusters were categorized into 3 groups: (1) high, (2) medium and (3) low. Each group had 20 clusters. From these three groups, 6 clusters (about 300 households) were randomly selected for each type of intervention and control arms. Vector density was measured before and 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 22 months after intervention using CDC light traps. The impact of interventions was measured by using the difference-in-differences regression model.

resultsA total of 17,434 sand flies were collected at baseline and during the surveys conducted over 9 months following the baseline measurements. At baseline, the average P. argentipes density per household was 10.6 (SD = 11.5) in the control arm and 7.3 (SD = 8.46) to 11.5 (SD = 20.2) in intervention arms. The intervention results presented as the range of percent reductions of sand flies (males plus females) and rate ratios in 9 measurements over 22 months. Among single type interventions, the effect of IRS with 2 rounds of spraying (applied by the research team) ranged from 13% to 75% reduction of P. argentipes density compared to the control arm (rate-ratio [RR] ranged from 0.25 to 0.87). LLINs caused a vector reduction of 9% to 78% (RR, 0.22 to 0.91). KOTAB reduced vectors by 4% to 73% (RR, 0.27 to 0.96). The combination of LLIN and OUT led to a vector reduction of 26% to 86% (RR, 0.14 to 0.74). The reduction for the combination of IRS and OUT was 8% to 88% (RR, 0.12 to 0.92). IRS and LLIN combined resulted in a vector reduction of 13% to 85% (RR, 0.15 to 0.77). The IRS and KOTAB combination reduced vector densities by 16% to 86% (RR, 0.14 to 0.84). Some intermediate measurements for KOTAB alone and for IRS plus LLIN; and IRS plus KOTAB were not statistically significant. The bioassays on sprayed surfaces or netting materials showed favourable results (>80% mortality) for 22 months (IRS tested for 12 months). In the KOTAB, a gradual decline was observed after 6 months.

conclusionsLLIN and OUT was the best combination to reduce VL vector densities for 22 months or longer. Operationally, this is much easier to apply than IRS. A cost analysis of the preferred tools will follow. The relationship between vector density (males plus females) and leishmaniasis incidence should be investigated, and this will require estimates of the Entomological Inoculation Rate.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsBangladeshChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInsect ControlInsect VectorsMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID28873425
PMCPMC5600390
OpenAlexW2751361862

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.