ReviewPathogens and global health2018
Building the evidence base for dengue vector control: searching for certainty in an uncertain world.
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.
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.
- Bridging the Gaps in Dengue Control in Latin America: Multisectoral Strategies from an Expert Panel.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Vector control for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes implemented in the field in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Aedes aegypti control in breeding sites through an insecticidal coating with dual effect: Laboratory trials and safety assessment.Medical and veterinary entomology · 2025Article
- Could prophylactic antivirals reduce dengue incidence in a high-prevalence endemic area?PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.