ArticleScientific reports2021
Field evaluation of two mosquito traps in Zhejiang Province, China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spatiotemporal patterns and meteorological associations of mosquito density: insights from mosquito surveillance in Chengdu, China.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating experimental design to sample mosquitoes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Spatial variation of population, density, and composition of mosquitoes in mainland China.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Effective population size ofFrontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Carbon dioxide and blood-feeding shift visual cue tracking during navigation inBiology letters · 2022Article
- Comparison of Different Mosquito Traps for Zoonotic Arbovirus Vectors in Papua New Guinea.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mosquito-borne Diseases are a common but severe public health threat. However, there is a lack of consensus on the effect of different mosquito trapping devices in China. This study firstly compared the BGM trap with the CDC light trap, commonly used in Chinese mosquito surveillance. Field trials of traps' efficiency were conducted in Yiwu city, China, from May 21st, 2018 to November 31st, 2018. Sixty-five comparisons were completed in five different biotopes (an urban residential area, a rural residential area, a park, a hospital, and a pig shelter). Concerning the number of mosquitoes per trap, the BGM trap outperformed three out of five biotopes. In contrast, the CDC light trap only showed better performance in the pig shelter. For specific species, the BGM trap outperformed in capturing Ae. albopictus, while the CDC light trap caught significantly more Cx. tritaeniorhynchus. Regarding Ae. albopictus and Cx. pipiens s.l. surveillance, the BGM trap is more suitable. The BGM trap shows significantly higher or similar efficiency than the CDC light trap in trapping common mosquito species in China, except in the pig shelter. Therefore, we recommend that Chinese researchers and public health practitioners use the BGM trap in future mosquito surveillance.
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.