ReviewParasitology research2018
A review on test methods for insecticidal fabrics and the need for standardisation.
Review in Parasitology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- ROY Crystallization on Poly(ethylene) Fibers, a Model for Bed Net Crystallography.Chemistry of materials : a publication of the American Chemical Society · 2024Article
- Understanding the current state-of-the-art of long-lasting insecticide nets and potential for sustainable alternatives.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2022Review
- Comparative evaluation of an improved test method for bioefficacy of insecticidal fabrics against dengue and malaria vectors.Parasites & vectors · 2019Article
- Serological Data Shows Low Levels of Chikungunya Exposure in Senegalese Nomadic Pastoralists.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insecticidal fabrics are effective personal protective measures against disease vectors and unlike bed nets, these fabrics can provide protection from day-biting mosquitoes and in outdoor environments. The rapid geographical expansion of day-biting mosquitoes and their role in disease transmission necessitate technological interventions, which can be effectively used during the daytime. There is a renewed interest in insecticidal fabrics mainly due to the recent outbreaks and geographical spread of dengue and chikungunya and with the emerging threat of Zika virus infection. Insecticidal fabrics are useful for protection from night-biting mosquitoes and also in situations were sleeping under a bed net is not possible. They are also effective against other biting arthropods like ticks, mites, tsetse flies, sand flies and body lice. Although long-lasting insecticidal fabrics factory-treated with permethrin are now commercially available for military and civilian use, there are no international guidelines for testing their efficacy. The different methods employed so far for testing bioefficacy, washing and quantification of permethrin are compiled in this review. The future prospects and challenges ahead for long-lasting insecticidal fabrics are discussed in the context of the increased threat from day-biting mosquitoes and the diseases transmitted by them. The review focuses on the need for standardisation of the test methods for ensuring adequate bioefficacy and safety to the user. The differences between long-lasting insecticidal nets and long-lasting insecticidal fabrics are elaborated, and the need for a separate registration and licencing procedure for long-lasting insecticidal fabrics is highlighted. A test procedure for insecticidal fabrics is described, which could be used until internationally accepted guidelines are available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.