Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33468152›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2021

Textile testing to assess the resistance to damage of long-lasting insecticidal nets for malaria control and prevention.

Amy Wheldrake, Estelle Guillemois, Hamidreza Arouni, Vera Chetty, Stephen J Russell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Video-trackedRoyal Society open science · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

5 authors.

Amy WheldrakeNonwovens Innovation & Research Institute Ltd, 169 Meanwood Road, Leeds, LS7 1SR, West Yorkshire, UK.
Estelle GuillemoisNonwovens Innovation & Research Institute Ltd, 169 Meanwood Road, Leeds, LS7 1SR, West Yorkshire, UK.
Hamidreza ArouniNonwovens Innovation & Research Institute Ltd, 169 Meanwood Road, Leeds, LS7 1SR, West Yorkshire, UK.
Vera ChettyNonwovens Innovation & Research Institute Ltd, 169 Meanwood Road, Leeds, LS7 1SR, West Yorkshire, UK.
Stephen J RussellNonwovens Innovation & Research Institute Ltd, 169 Meanwood Road, Leeds, LS7 1SR, West Yorkshire, UK. stephenr@nonwovens-innovation.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLLINs are susceptible to forming holes within a short time in use, compromising their ability to provide long-term physical protection against insect-borne vectors of disease. Mechanical damage is known to be responsible for the majority of holes, with most being the result of snagging, tearing, hole enlargement, abrasion and seam failure, which can readily occur during normal household use. To enable an assessment of the ability of LLINs to resist such damage prior to distribution, a new suite of testing methods was developed to reflect the main damage mechanisms encountered during normal use of LLINs.

methodsFour existing BS EN and ISO standards used by the textile industry were adapted to determine the ability of LLINs to resist the most common mechanisms of real-world damage experienced in the field. The new suite comprised tests for snag strength (BS 15,598:2008), bursting strength (ISO 13938-2:1999), hole enlargement resistance (BS 3423-38:1998), abrasion resistance (ISO 12947-1:1998) and new guidance around the seam construction of LLINs. Fourteen different LLINs were tested using the new suite of tests to evaluate their resistance to damage.

resultsThe resistance to mechanical damage of LLINs is not the same, even when the bursting strength values are comparable. Differences in performance between LLINs are directly related to the fabric design specifications, including the knitted structure and constituent yarns. The differences in performance do not primarily relate to what polymer type the LLIN is made from. LLINs made with a Marquisette knitted structure produced the highest snag strength and lowest hole enlargement values. By contrast, LLINs made with a traverse knitted structure exhibited low snag strength values when compared at the same mesh count.

conclusionsPrequalification of LLINs should consider not only insecticidal performance, but also inherent resistance to mechanical damage. This is critical to ensuring LLINs are fit for purpose prior to distribution, and are capable of remaining in good physical condition for longer. The new suite of test methods enables the performance of LLINs to be assessed and specified in advance of distribution and can be used to establish minimum performance standards. Implementation of these testing methods is therefore recommended.

Indexed as

Insecticide-Treated BednetsMalariaMosquito ControlTextilesAbrasion resistanceLong-lasting insecticidal mosquito netsSnag testTear testWounded bursting strength

Identifiers

PMID33468152
PMCPMC7816374

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.