Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31295250›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2019

Environmental methods for dengue vector control - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Claudia Buhler, Volker Winkler, Silvia Runge-Ranzinger, Ross Boyce, Olaf Horstick

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 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. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Effectiveness of Dengue Vector Control: A Meta-Review.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Evidence map of strategies for preventing and controllingRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Review
  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.

Claudia BuhlerInstitute for Medical Information, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health (PSPH), Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5208-2971
Volker WinklerHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.
Silvia Runge-RanzingerHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.
Ross BoyceDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Olaf HorstickHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVector control remains the primary method to prevent dengue infections. Environmental interventions represent sustainable and safe methods as there are limited risks of environmental contamination and toxicity. The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the following environmental methods for dengue vector control. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Quality assessment was done using the CONSORT 2010 checklist. For the meta-analysis the difference-in-differences (DID) and the difference-of-endlines (DOE) were calculated according to the Schmidt-Hunter method for the Breteau index (BI) and the pupae per person index (PPI). Nineteen studies were eligible for the systematic review, sixteen contributed data to the meta-analysis. The following methods were evaluated: (a) container covers with and without insecticides, (b) waste management and clean-up campaigns, and (c) elimination of breeding sites by rendering potential mosquito breeding sites unusable or by eliminating them. Study quality was highest for container covers with insecticides, followed by waste management without direct garbage collection and elimination of breeding places. Both, systematic review and meta-analysis, showed a weak effect of the interventions on larval populations, with no obvious differences between the results of each individual method. For the meta-analysis, both, container covers without insecticides (BI: DID -7.9, DOE -5) and waste management with direct garbage collection (BI: DID -8.83, DOE -6.2) achieved the strongest reductions for the BI, whereas for the PPI results were almost opposite, with container covers with insecticides (PPI: DID -0.83, DOE 0.09) and elimination of breeding places (PPI: DID -0.95, DOE -0.83) showing the strongest effects.

conclusionsEach of the investigated environmental methods showed some effectiveness in reducing larval and pupal densities of Aedes sp. mosquitoes. However, there is a need for more comparable high-quality studies at an adequate standard to strengthen this evidence.

Indexed as

Environmental MicrobiologyInsecticidesAedesAnimalsDengueLarvaMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsPupaUrban HealthWater SupplyInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID31295250
PMCPMC6650086

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.