Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32950061›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2020

Evaluating effectiveness of screening house eaves as a potential intervention for reducing indoor vector densities and malaria prevalence in Nyabondo, western Kenya.

Peter Njoroge Ng'ang'a, Collins Okoyo, Charles Mbogo, Clifford Maina Mutero

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. House modifications for preventing malaria.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter Njoroge Ng'ang'aInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), PO Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya. pnganga2003@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0836-7232
Collins OkoyoEastern and Southern Africa Centre of International Parasite Control (ESACIPAC), Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Nairobi, Kenya.
Charles MbogoEastern and Southern Africa Centre of International Parasite Control (ESACIPAC), Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Nairobi, Kenya.
Clifford Maina MuteroInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), PO Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya.
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology · KEKenya Medical Research Institute · KE

Funding

Biovision (BV) Foundation BV HH-07/2016-18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMosquito-proofing of houses using wire mesh screens is gaining greater recognition as a practical intervention for reducing exposure to malaria transmitting mosquitoes. Screening potentially protects all persons sleeping inside the house against transmission of mosquito-borne diseases indoors. The study assessed the effectiveness of house eaves screening in reducing indoor vector densities and malaria prevalence in Nyabondo, western Kenya.

methods160 houses were selected for the study, with half of them randomly chosen for eaves screening with fibre-glass coated wire mesh (experimental group) and the other half left without screening (control group). Randomization was carried out by use of computer-generated list in permuted blocks of ten houses and 16 village blocks, with half of them allocated treatment in a ratio of 1:1. Cross-sectional baseline entomological and parasitological data were collected before eave screening. After baseline data collection, series of sampling of indoor adult mosquitoes were conducted once a month in each village using CDC light traps. Three cross-sectional malaria parasitological surveys were conducted at three month intervals after installation of the screens. The primary outcome measures were indoor Anopheles mosquito density and malaria parasite prevalence.

resultsA total of 15,286 mosquitoes were collected over the two year period using CDC light traps in 160 houses distributed over 16 study villages (mean mosquitoes = 4.35, SD = 11.48). Of all mosquitoes collected, 2,872 (18.8%) were anophelines (2,869 Anopheles gambiae sensu lato, 1 Anopheles funestus and 2 other Anopheles spp). Overall, among An. gambiae collected, 92.6% were non-blood fed, 3.57% were blood fed and the remaining 0.47% were composed of gravid and half gravid females. More indoor adult mosquitoes were collected in the control than experimental arms of the study. Results from cross-sectional parasitological surveys showed that screened houses recorded relatively low malaria parasite prevalence rates compared to the control houses. Overall, malaria prevalence was 5.6% (95% CI: 4.2-7.5) n = 1,918, with baseline prevalence rate of 6.1% (95% CI: 3.9-9.4), n = 481 and 3

conclusionsThe study demonstrated that house eave screening has potential to reduce indoor vector densities and malaria prevalence in high transmission areas.

Indexed as

AnophelesHousingInsecticidesMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansKenyaMalaria, FalciparumPopulation DensityPrevalenceInsecticidesAnopheles gambiaeEavesMalariaMosquitoesPrevalenceScreeningVector control

Identifiers

PMID32950061
PMCPMC7501660
OpenAlexW3087207371

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.