ArticleTropical medicine and health2020
The durability of long-lasting insecticidal nets distributed to the households between 2009 and 2013 in Nepal.
Article in Tropical medicine and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Durability and effectiveness of insecticide-treated nets in Mali: a longitudinal gSG6-P1 biomarker-based assessment of children's exposure to Anopheles bites.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Insufficient duration of insecticidal efficacy of YaheMalaria journal · 2024Article
- WHO cone bioassay boards with or without holes: relevance for bioassay outcomes in long-lasting insecticidal net studies.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Stratification at the health district level for targeting malaria control interventions in Mali.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Understanding the current state-of-the-art of long-lasting insecticide nets and potential for sustainable alternatives.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding and improving the durability of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) in the field are critical for planning future implementation strategies including behavioral change for care and maintenance. LLIN distribution at high coverage is considered to be one of the adjunctive transmission reduction strategies in Nepal's Malaria Strategic Plan 2014-2025. The main objective of this study was to assess the durability through assessment of community usage, physical integrity, residual bio-efficacy, and chemical retention in LLINs: Interceptor®, Yorkool®, and PermaNet ®2.0 which were used in Nepal during 2009 through 2013.
methodsAssessments were conducted on random samples (
resultsOn average, duration of use of LLINs was shortest for the Yorkool® samples, followed by PermaNet® 2.0 and Interceptor® with median ages of 8.9 (IQR = 0.4), 23.8 (IQR = 3.2), and 50.1 (IQR = 3.2) months, respectively. Over 80% of field distributed Yorkool® and PermaNet® 2.0 nets were in good condition (pHI< 25) compared to Interceptor® (66%). Bio-efficacy analysis showed that average mortality rates of Interceptor and Yorkool were below World Health Organization (WHO) optimal effectiveness of ≥ 80% compared to 2-year-old PermaNet 2.0 which attained 80%. Chemical retention analysis was consistent with bio-efficacy results.
conclusionThis study shows that distribution of LLINs is effective for malaria control; however, serviceable life of LLINs should be considered in terms of waning residual bio-efficacy that warrants replacement. As an adjunctive malaria control tool, National Malaria Control Program of Nepal can benefit by renewing the distribution of LLINs in an appropriate time frame in addition to utilizing durable and effective LLINs.
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.