Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30521408›Full record

ReviewPathogens and global health2018

Building the evidence base for dengue vector control: searching for certainty in an uncertain world.

Olaf Horstick, Ross Boyce, Silvia Runge-Ranzinger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pathogens and global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Olaf Horsticka Heidelberg Institute of Global Health , University of Heidelberg , Germany.
Ross Boyceb Division of Infectious Diseases , University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill , NC , USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9489-6324
Silvia Runge-Ranzingera Heidelberg Institute of Global Health , University of Heidelberg , Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review discusses biological and chemical methods for dengue vector control, using recently emerging summary evidence, meta-analyses and systematic reviews to conclude on practical public health recommendations for Aedes control, which is increasingly relevant in an era of widespread Chikungunya, yellow feer and Zika outbreaks. The analysis follows an a priori framework of systematic reviews by the authors on vector control methods, distinguishing vector control methods into biological, chemical and environmental methods. Findings of each published systematic review by the authors, following each individual vector control method, are summarised and compared in the discussion against the findings of existing meta-analyses covering all vector control methods. Analysing nine systematic reviews and comparing to two existing meta-analyses provided low-to-moderate evidence that the control of Aedes mosquitoes can be achieved using 1) chemical methods, particularly indoor residual spraying and insecticide treated materials, and 2) biological methods, where appropriate. The level of efficacy and community effectiveness of the methods in most studies analysed is low, as was the overall assessment of study quality. Furthermore, the results show that too optimise results, larvae and adults should be targeted simultaneously. The quality of service delivery is probably one of the most important features of this analysis - and including high coverage. The analysis also highlights the urgent need for standards to guide the design and reporting of vector control studies, ensuring the validity and comparability of results. These studies should aim to include measurements of human transmission data - where and when possible.

Indexed as

AedesAnimalsDengueDisease Transmission, InfectiousHumansInsecticidesMosquito ControlInsecticidesDengue; vector control; efficacy; community effectiveness; summary evidence

Identifiers

PMID30521408
PMCPMC6327620

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.