Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29117180›Full record

Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

The additional benefit of residual spraying and insecticide-treated curtains for dengue control over current best practice in Cuba: Evaluation of disease incidence in a cluster randomized trial in a low burden setting with intensive routine control.

Maria Eugenia Toledo, Veerle Vanlerberghe, Julio Popa Rosales, Mayelin Mirabal, Pedro Cabrera, Viviana Fonseca, Tania Gómez Padrón, Mirtha Pérez Menzies, Domingo Montada, Patrick Van der Stuyft

Abstract readRandomized 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 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Impact of chemical interventions on reducing dengue, Zika, and chikungunya: a systematic review.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Maria Eugenia ToledoDepartment of Epidemiology, Institute of Tropical Medicine "Pedro Kourí", La Habana, Cuba.
Veerle VanlerbergheDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6531-0793
Julio Popa RosalesProvincial Center of Surveillance and Vector Control, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba.
Mayelin MirabalFinlay Institute - Center for Vaccines Research and Production, Habana, Cuba.
Pedro CabreraProvincial Center of Surveillance and Vector Control, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba.
Viviana FonsecaProvincial Center of Surveillance and Vector Control, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba.
Tania Gómez PadrónProvincial center of Epidemiology, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba.
Mirtha Pérez MenziesProvincial Center of Surveillance and Vector Control, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba.
Domingo MontadaDepartment of Epidemiology, Institute of Tropical Medicine "Pedro Kourí", La Habana, Cuba.
Patrick Van der StuyftDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAedes control interventions are considered the cornerstone of dengue control programmes, but there is scarce evidence on their effect on disease. We set-up a cluster randomized controlled trial in Santiago de Cuba to evaluate the entomological and epidemiological effectiveness of periodical intra- and peri-domiciliary residual insecticide (deltamethrin) treatment (RIT) and long lasting insecticide treated curtains (ITC). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsSixty three clusters (around 250 households each) were randomly allocated to two intervention (RIT and ITC) and one control arm. Routine Aedes control activities (entomological surveillance, source reduction, selective adulticiding, health education) were applied in the whole study area. The outcome measures were clinical dengue case incidence and immature Aedes infestation. Effectiveness of tools was evaluated using a generalized linear regression model with a negative binomial link function. Despite significant reduction in Aedes indices (Rate Ratio (RR) 0.54 (95%CI 0.32-0.89) in the first month after RIT, the effect faded out over time and dengue incidence was not reduced. Overall, in this setting there was no protective effect of RIT or ITC over routine in the 17months intervention period, with for house index RR of 1.16 (95%CI 0.96-1.40) and 1.25 (95%CI 1.03-1.50) and for dengue incidence RR of 1.43 (95%CI 1.08-1.90) and 0.96 (95%CI 0.72-1.28) respectively. The monthly dengue incidence rate (IR) at cluster level was best explained by epidemic periods (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 5.50 (95%CI 4.14-7.31)), the IR in bordering houseblocks (IRR 1.03 (95%CI 1.02-1.04)) and the IR pre-intervention (IRR 1.02 (95%CI 1.00-1.04)).

conclusionsAdding RIT to an intensive routine Aedes control programme has a transient effect on the already moderate low entomological infestation levels, while ITC did not have any effect. For both interventions, we didn't evidence impact on disease incidence. Further studies are needed to evaluate impact in settings with high Aedes infestation and arbovirus case load.

Indexed as

AedesAerosolsAnimalsCubaDengueHumansIncidenceInsecticidesMosquito ControlPopulation DensityPractice Guidelines as TopicTreatment OutcomeAerosolsInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID29117180
PMCPMC5695847

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.