ArticleParasites & vectors2021
Comparison of four outdoor mosquito trapping methods as potential replacements for human landing catches in western Kenya.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of the prevalence ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- An autonomous intelligent mosquito sentinel for field-deployed surveillance.Communications engineering · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Considerations for first field trials of low-threshold gene drive for malaria vector control.Malaria journal · 2024Review
- Comparison of different trapping methods to collect malaria vectors indoors and outdoors in western Kenya.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- Early morning anopheline mosquito biting, a potential driver of malaria transmission in Busia County, western Kenya.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- Insecticide treated eaves screens provide additional marginal protection compared to untreated eave screens under semi-field conditions in western Kenya.MalariaWorld journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the solar-powered Silver Bullet 2.1 (Lumin 8) light trap for sampling malaria vectors in western Kenya.Malaria journal · 2023Article
- Screening eaves of houses reduces indoor mosquito density in rural, western Kenya.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) compared to the human landing catch (HLC) for measuring Anopheles biting in rural Tanzania.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- UV Light-Emitting-Diode Traps for Collecting Nocturnal Biting Mosquitoes in Urban Bangkok.Insects · 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
16 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLongitudinal monitoring of outdoor-biting malaria vector populations is becoming increasingly important in understanding the dynamics of residual malaria transmission. However, the human landing catch (HLC), the gold standard for measuring human biting rates indoors and outdoors, is costly and raises ethical concerns related to increased risk of infectious bites among collectors. Consequently, routine data on outdoor-feeding mosquito populations are usually limited because of the lack of a scalable tool with similar sensitivity to outdoor HLC. METHODOLOGY: The Anopheles trapping sensitivity of four baited proxy outdoor trapping methods-Furvela tent trap (FTT), host decoy trap (HDT), mosquito electrocuting traps (MET) and outdoor CDC light traps (OLT)-was assessed relative to HLC in a 5 × 5 replicated Latin square conducted over 25 nights in two villages of western Kenya. Indoor CDC light trap (ILT) was run in one house in each of the compounds with outdoor traps, while additional non-Latin square indoor and outdoor HLC collections were performed in one of the study villages.
resultsThe MET, FTT, HDT and OLT sampled approximately 4.67, 7.58, 5.69 and 1.98 times more An. arabiensis compared to HLC, respectively, in Kakola Ombaka. Only FTT was more sensitive relative to HLC in sampling An. funestus in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 5.59, 95% CI 2.49-12.55, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 4.38, 95% CI 1.62-11.80, P = 0.004) and in sampling An. arabiensis in Masogo (RR = 5.37, 95% CI 2.17-13.24, P < 0.001). OLT sampled significantly higher numbers of An. coustani in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.65-5.56, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 2.88, 95% CI 1.15-7.22, P = 0.02) compared to HLC. OLT, HLC and MET sampled mostly An. coustani, FTT had similar proportions of An. funestus and An. arabiensis, while HDT sampled predominantly An. arabiensis in both villages. FTT showed close correlation with ILT in vector abundance for all three species at both collection sites.
conclusionFTT and OLT are simple, easily scalable traps and are potential replacements for HLC in outdoor sampling of Anopheles mosquitoes. However, the FTT closely mirrored indoor CDC light trap in mosquito indices and therefore may be more of an indoor mimic than a true outdoor collection tool. HDT and MET show potential for sampling outdoor host-seeking mosquitoes. However, the traps as currently designed may not be feasible for large-scale, longitudinal entomological monitoring. Therefore, the baited outdoor CDC light trap may be the most appropriate tool currently available for assessment of outdoor-biting and malaria transmission risk.
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.