Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33420500›Full record

ArticleJournal of economic entomology2021

Methods for Testing Repellents Against Bed Bugs (Hemiptera: Cimicidae).

Anne Krüger, Erik Schmolz, Arlette Vander Pan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of economic entomology, 2021. 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
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne Krüger
Erik SchmolzGerman Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany.
Arlette Vander PanGerman Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany.
German Environment Agency · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bed bug repellents should not only prevent humans from being bitten but impede an infestation of personal belongings. Only a few test proposals for evaluating the efficacy of repellents against bed bugs have been published so far. In the present study, two test systems were assessed for efficacy testing with five potential bed bug repellents (cinnamon oil, icaridin, N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET), permethrin, and margosa extract). The first test setup was a harborage choice test system that consisted of a crystallizing dish with a treated and an untreated harborage. Sixty minutes and 24 h after treatment, DEET, icaridin, and cinnamon oil showed the highest repellency with a median proportion of at least 99% repelled bed bugs. The second test system was a barrier test. Bed bugs were attracted by CO2 and heat to cross filter papers treated with the potential repellents. The repellency of substances was significantly lower in comparison to the harborage choice test, except for DEET. The latter showed the highest repellency (97%) against bed bugs 24 h after application compared to controls. Results show that bed bugs are less sensitive to repellents when searching for a bloodmeal than when searching for a shelter.

Indexed as

BedbugsInsect RepellentsOils, VolatileAnimalsDEETPermethrinDEETInsect RepellentsOils, VolatilePermethrincinnamon oilDEETrepellentssimulated-use testtest system

Identifiers

PMID33420500
PMCPMC7871147
OpenAlexW3119046796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.