Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29157310›Full record

SynthesisInfectious diseases of poverty2017

Zooprophylaxis as a control strategy for malaria caused by the vector Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae): a systematic review.

Abebe Asale, Luc Duchateau, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Gerdien Huisman, Delenasaw Yewhalaw

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Infectious diseases of poverty, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. ElevatedInsects · 2025
    Article
  15. Journal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Efficacy ofInsects · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Abebe AsaleDepartment of Biology, College of Natural Sciences, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia. abebea663@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0143-5762
Luc DuchateauDepartment of Animal Physiology and Biometry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Brecht DevleesschauwerDepartment of Animal Physiology and Biometry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Gerdien HuismanDepartment of Animal Physiology and Biometry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Delenasaw YewhalawDepartment of Medical Laboratory Sciences and Pathology, College of Health Sciences, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Ghent University · BEJimma University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundZooprophylaxis is the use of wild or domestic animals, which are not the reservoir host of a given disease, to divert the blood-seeking malaria vectors from human hosts. In this paper, we systematically reviewed zooprophylaxis to assess its efficacy as a malaria control strategy and to evaluate the possible methods of its application.

methodsThe electronic databases, PubMed Central®, Web of Science, Science direct, and African Journals Online were searched using the key terms: "zooprophylaxis" or "cattle and malaria", and reports published between January 1995 and March 2016 were considered. Thirty-four reports on zooprophylaxis were retained for the systematic review.

resultsIt was determined that Anopheles arabiensis is an opportunistic feeder. It has a strong preference for cattle odour when compared to human odour, but feeds on both hosts. Its feeding behaviour depends on the available hosts, varying from endophilic and endophagic to exophilic and exophagic. There are three essential factors for zooprophylaxis to be effective in practice: a zoophilic and exophilic vector, habitat separation between human and host animal quarters, and augmenting zooprophylaxis with insecticide treatment of animals or co-intervention of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and/or indoor residual spraying. Passive zooprophylaxis can be applied only in malaria vector control if cattle and human dwellings are separated in order to avoid the problem of zoopotentiation.

conclusionsThe outcomes of using zooprophylaxis as a malaria control strategy varied across locations. It is therefore advised to conduct a site-specific evaluation of its effectiveness in vector control before implementing zooprophylaxis as the behaviour of Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes varies across localities and circumstances.

Indexed as

CattleAnimalsAnophelesCommunicable Disease ControlFeeding BehaviorHumansMalariaMosquito VectorsCattleEthiopiaMalariaMosquitoVector control

Identifiers

PMID29157310
PMCPMC5697156
OpenAlexW2768285983

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.