ArticleParasites & vectors2020
Characterization of vector communities and biting behavior in South Sulawesi with host decoy traps and human landing catches.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Which trap is best? Alternatives to outdoor human landing catches for malaria vector surveillance: a meta-analysis.Malaria journal · 2022Pooled it
- [Effect of low-dose primaquine treatment on Plasmodium vivax recurrence and transmission-blocking activity in southwest Ethiopia: a longitudinal cohort study.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Historical and current perspectives on Japanese encephalitis in Sulawesi, Indonesia.Veterinary world · 2025Review
- The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) compared to the human landing catch (HLC) for measuring Anopheles biting in rural Tanzania.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- The human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) is an efficient sampling device for exophagic Anopheles arabiensis within irrigated lands in southern Malawi.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Semi-field evaluation of human landing catchesPeerJ · 2022Article
- Capture of high numbers of Simulium vectors can be achieved with Host Decoy Traps to support data acquisition in the onchocerciasis elimination endgame.Acta tropica · 2021Article
- Semi-field evaluation of the exposure-free mosquito electrocuting trap and BG-Sentinel trap as an alternative to the human landing catch for measuring the efficacy of transfluthrin emanators against Aedes aegypti.Parasites & vectors · 2021Article
- New vectors that are early feeders for Plasmodium knowlesi and other simian malaria parasites in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndonesia has high mosquito diversity, with circulating malaria and arboviruses. Human landing catches (HLC) are ethically questionable where arboviral transmission occurs. The host decoy trap (HDT) is an exposure-free alternative outdoor sampling device. To determine HDT efficacy for local culicids, and to characterize local mosquito fauna, the trapping efficacy of the HDT was compared to that of HLCs in one peri-urban (Lakkang) and one rural (Pucak) village in Sulawesi, Indonesia.
resultsIn Lakkang the outdoor HLCs collected significantly more Anopheles per night (n = 22 ± 9) than the HDT (n = 3 ± 1), while the HDT collected a significantly greater nightly average of Culex mosquitoes (n = 110 ± 42), than the outdoor HLC (n = 15.1 ± 6.0). In Pucak, there was no significant difference in Anopheles collected between trap types; however, the HDT collected significantly more Culex mosquitoes than the outdoor HLC nightly average (n = 53 ± 11 vs 14 ± 3). Significantly higher proportions of blood-fed mosquitoes were found in outdoor HLC (n = 15 ± 2%) compared to HDT (n = 2 ± 0%). More blood-fed culicines were collected with outdoor HLC compared to the HDT, while Anopheles blood-fed proportions did not differ. For the HDT, 52.6%, 36.8% and 10.5% of identified blood meals were on cow, human, and dog, respectively. Identified blood meals for outdoor HLCs were 91.9% human, 6.3% cow, and 0.9% each dog and cat. Mosquitoes from Pucak were tested for arboviruses, with one Culex pool and one Armigeres pool positive for flavivirus, and one Anopheles pool positive for alphavirus.
conclusionsThe HDT collected the highest abundance of culicine specimens. Outdoor HLCs collected the highest abundance of Anopheles specimens. Although the HDT can attract a range of different Asian mosquito genera and species, it remains to be optimized for Anopheles in Asia. The high proportion of human blood meals in mosquitoes collected by outdoor HLCs raises concerns on the potential exposure risk to collectors using this methodology and highlights the importance of continuing to optimize a host-mimic trap such as the HDT.
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.