ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021
Negative density-dependent dispersal in tsetse (Glossina spp): An artefact of inappropriate analysis.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of the area sampled by traps: A modelling study with tsetse.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Published analysis of genetic material from field-collected tsetse (Glossina spp, primarily from the Palpalis group) has been used to predict that the distance (δ) dispersed per generation increases as effective population densities (De) decrease, displaying negative density-dependent dispersal (NDDD). Using the published data we show this result is an artefact arising primarily from errors in estimates of S, the area occupied by a subpopulation, and thereby in De. The errors arise from the assumption that S can be estimated as the area ([Formula: see text]) regarded as being covered by traps. We use modelling to show that such errors result in anomalously high correlations between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] and the appearance of NDDD, with a slope of -0.5 for the regressions of log([Formula: see text]) on log([Formula: see text]), even in simulations where we specifically assume density-independent dispersal (DID). A complementary mathematical analysis confirms our findings. Modelling of field results shows, similarly, that the false signal of NDDD can be produced by varying trap deployment patterns. Errors in the estimates of δ in the published analysis were magnified because variation in estimates of S were greater than for all other variables measured, and accounted for the greatest proportion of variation in [Formula: see text]. Errors in census population estimates result from an erroneous understanding of the relationship between trap placement and expected tsetse catch, exacerbated through failure to adjust for variations in trapping intensity, trap performance, and in capture probabilities between geographical situations and between tsetse species. Claims of support in the literature for NDDD are spurious. There is no suggested explanation for how NDDD might have evolved. We reject the NDDD hypothesis and caution that the idea should not be allowed to influence policy on tsetse and trypanosomiasis control.
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.