Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33465098›Full record

Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Insecticide-treated house screening protects against Zika-infected Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico.

Pablo Manrique-Saide, Josué Herrera-Bojórquez, Anuar Medina-Barreiro, Emilio Trujillo-Peña, Josué Villegas-Chim, Nina Valadez-González, Ahmed M M Ahmed, Hugo Delfín-González, Jorge Palacio-Vargas, Azael Che-Mendoza and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review of the ecology and behaviour ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2022
    Article
  14. Challenges to Mitigating the Urban Health Burden of Mosquito-Borne Diseases in the Face of Climate Change.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Pablo Manrique-SaideUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomologicos, Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-0565-1342
Josué Herrera-BojórquezUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomologicos, Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Anuar Medina-BarreiroUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomologicos, Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Emilio Trujillo-PeñaUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomologicos, Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Josué Villegas-ChimUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomologicos, Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-1936-3624
Nina Valadez-GonzálezCentro de Investigaciones Regionales, Unidad Biomédicas, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-4584-7240
Ahmed M M AhmedUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomologicos, Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Hugo Delfín-GonzálezUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomologicos, Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-2408-5128
Jorge Palacio-VargasServicios de Salud de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Azael Che-MendozaUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomologicos, Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Norma Pavía-RuzCentro de Investigaciones Regionales, Unidad Biomédicas, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Adriana E FloresFacultad de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-8554-8865
Gonzalo Vazquez-ProkopecDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0710-270X
Autonomous University of Yucatán · MXEmory University · USSecretaría de Investigación, Innovación y Educación Superior · MXUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León · MX

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe integration of house-screening and long-lasting insecticidal nets, known as insecticide-treated screening (ITS), can provide simple, safe, and low-tech Aedes aegypti control. Cluster randomised controlled trials in two endemic localities for Ae. aegypti of south Mexico, showed that ITS conferred both, immediate and sustained (~2 yr) impact on indoor-female Ae. aegypti infestations. Such encouraging results require further validation with studies quantifying more epidemiologically-related endpoints, including arbovirus infection in Ae. aegypti. We evaluated the efficacy of protecting houses with ITS on Ae. aegypti infestation and arbovirus infection during a Zika outbreak in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsA two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial evaluated the entomological efficacy of ITS compared to the absence of ITS (with both arms able to receive routine arbovirus vector control) in the neighbourhood Juan Pablo II of Merida. Cross-sectional entomological surveys quantified indoor adult mosquito infestation and arbovirus infection at baseline (pre-ITS installation) and throughout two post-intervention (PI) surveys spaced at 6-month intervals corresponding to dry/rainy seasons over one year (2016-2017). Household-surveys assessed the social reception of the intervention. Houses with ITS were 79-85% less infested with Aedes females than control houses up to one-year PI. A similar significant trend was observed for blood-fed Ae. aegypti females (76-82%). Houses with ITS had significantly less infected female Ae. aegypti than controls during the peak of the epidemic (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-0.29), an effect that was significant up to a year PI (OR = 0.24, 0.15-0.39). Communities strongly accepted the intervention, due to its perceived mode of action, the prevalent risk for Aedes-borne diseases in the area, and the positive feedback from neighbours receiving ITS. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We show evidence of the protective efficacy of ITS against an arboviral disease of major relevance, and discuss the relevance of our findings for intervention adoption.

Indexed as

AedesAnimalsChikungunya virusDengue VirusFemaleHousingHumansInsect Bites and StingsInsecticidesMexicoMosquito ControlMosquito NetsMosquito VectorsZika VirusZika Virus InfectionInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID33465098
PMCPMC7853519
OpenAlexW3122361388

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.