Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31409374›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2019

Comparative field evaluation of kelambu traps, barrier screens and barrier screens with eaves for longitudinal surveillance of adult Anopheles mosquitoes in Sulawesi, Indonesia.

Jenna R Davidson, Isra Wahid, Rusdiyah Sudirman, Victoria Makuru, Hajar Hasan, Andi Muhammad Arfah, Nirwana Nur, Muhammad Yusuf Hidayat, Allison L Hendershot, Honglin Xiao and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jenna R DavidsonEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA. jdavids2@nd.edu.
Isra WahidDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia.
Rusdiyah SudirmanDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia.
Victoria MakuruEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Hajar HasanDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia.
Andi Muhammad ArfahDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia.
Nirwana NurDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia.
Muhammad Yusuf HidayatDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia.
Allison L HendershotEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Honglin XiaoEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Xiaoyu YuEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Puji Budi Setia AsihEijkman Institute for Molecular Biology, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Din SyafruddinDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia.
Neil F LoboEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Hasanuddin University · IDUniversity of Notre Dame · USEijkman Institute for Molecular Biology · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSampling methodologies for mosquitoes that are capable of transmitting vector-borne infectious diseases provide critical information on entomological endpoints. Reliable and meaningful field data is vital to the understanding of basic vector biology as well as disease transmission. Various traps take advantage of different vector behaviors and are inevitably subject to sampling biases. This study represents the first comparison of kelambu traps (KT) to barrier screens (BS), barrier screens with eaves (BSE) and indoor and outdoor human landing catches (HLCs).

methodsTwo trap comparison studies were undertaken. In the first study, mosquitoes were collected in Karama over 26 trapping nights to evaluate the kelambu trap relative to indoor and outdoor HLCs. In the second study, mosquitoes were collected in Karama over 12 trapping nights to compare the kelambu trap, barrier screen, barrier screen with eaves and outdoor HLCs. The kelambu trap, barrier screen and barrier screen with eaves obstruct the flight of mosquitos. HLCs target host-seeking behaviors.

resultsThere was no significant difference between indoor and outdoor HLCs for overall Anopheles mosquito abundance. All five of the molecularly identified Anopheles species collected by HLCs, An. aconitus, An. barbirostris, An. peditaeniatus, An. vagus and An. tessellatus, are reported as vectors of malaria in Indonesia. The kelambu trap (n = 2736) collected significantly more Anopheles mosquitoes than indoor HLCs (n = 1286; Z = 3.193, P = 0.004), but not the outdoor HLCs (n = 1580; Z = 2.325, P = 0.053). All traps collected statistically similar abundances for the primary species, An. barbirostris. However, both comparison studies found significantly higher abundances for the kelambu trap for several secondary species compared to all other traps: An. nigerriumus, An. parangensis, An. tessellatus and An. vagus. The kelambu trap retained the highest species richness and Gini-Simpson's diversity index for both comparison studies.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the kelambu trap collects overall Anopheles abundance and species-specific abundances at statistically similar or higher rates than HLCs in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Therefore, the kelambu trap should be considered as an exposure-free alternative to HLCs for research questions regarding Anopheles species in this malaria endemic region.

Indexed as

AnophelesFeeding BehaviorMosquito VectorsAnimalsEntomologyIndonesiaMosquito ControlSpecies SpecificityBarrier screensBarrier screens with eavesBionomicsKelambu trap

Identifiers

PMID31409374
PMCPMC6693138
OpenAlexW2967151732

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.