Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31989920›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2020

Auditing Preparedness for Vector Control Field Studies.

C Matilda Tilly Collins, M Megan Quinlan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C Matilda Tilly CollinsCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, United Kingdom.
M Megan QuinlanCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The value of baseline entomological data to any future area-wide release campaign relies on the application of consistent methods to produce results comparable across different times and places in a stepwise progression to larger releases. Traditionally, standard operating procedures (SOPs) and operational plans support this consistency and, thus, the validity of emergent data. When release plans include transgenic mosquitoes for vector control or other novel beneficial insects, additional factors come into play such as biosafety permits, stakeholder acceptance, and ethics approval, which require even greater coordination and thoroughness. An audit approach was developed to verify the correct use of SOPs and appropriate performance of tasks during mosquito mark, release, recapture (MRR) studies. Audit questions matched SOPs, permit terms and conditions, and other key criteria, and can be used to support subsequent "spot check" verification by field teams. An external team of auditors, however, was found to be effective for initial checks in this example before the use of a transgenic strain of laboratory mosquitoes. We recommend similar approaches for field studies using release of novel beneficial insects, to ensure useful and valid data as an outcome and to support confidence in the rigor of the step-wise process.

Indexed as

AnimalsCulicidaeEnvironmental MonitoringMosquito VectorsPopulation Dynamics

Identifiers

PMID31989920
PMCPMC7124921
OpenAlexW3003538889

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.