Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30046071›Full record

ReviewNature2018

Challenges and opportunities in controlling mosquito-borne infections.

Neil M Ferguson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Vector control strategies for preventing dengue transmission.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Article
  8. Research Trends and Collaborative Patterns inInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. NativeJournal of tropical medicine · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. CRISPR/Cas9-germline editing ofScience advances · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Neil M FergusonMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. neil.ferguson@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mosquito-borne diseases remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality across the tropical regions. Despite much progress in the control of malaria, malaria-associated morbidity remains high, whereas arboviruses-most notably dengue-are responsible for a rising burden of disease, even in middle-income countries that have almost completely eliminated malaria. Here I discuss how new interventions offer the promise of considerable future reductions in disease burden. However, I emphasize that intervention programmes need to be underpinned by rigorous trials and quantitative epidemiological analyses. Such analyses suggest that the long-term goal of elimination is more feasible for dengue than for malaria, even if malaria elimination would offer greater overall health benefit to the public.

Indexed as

AnimalsDengueGene Drive TechnologyGoalsHumansIncidenceMalariaMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsPest Control, BiologicalVaccinesWolbachiaVaccines

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.