Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34315473›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2021

Evaluation of different deployment strategies for larviciding to control malaria: a simulation study.

Manuela Runge, Salum Mapua, Ismail Nambunga, Thomas A Smith, Nakul Chitnis, Fredros Okumu, Emilie Pothin

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Manuela RungeSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. m.runge@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9918-760X
Salum MapuaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Ismail NambungaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Thomas A SmithSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Nakul ChitnisSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Fredros OkumuEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Emilie PothinSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute · CHIfakara Health Institute · TZ

Funding

bill and melinda gates foundation OPP1032350bill and melinda gates foundation OPP1099295bill and melinda gates foundation OPP1177156Wellcome Trustwellcome trust international masters fellowship in tropical medicine and hygiene 212633/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarviciding against malaria vectors in Africa has been limited to indoor residual spraying and insecticide-treated nets, but is increasingly being considered by some countries as a complementary strategy. However, despite progress towards improved larvicides and new tools for mapping or treating mosquito-breeding sites, little is known about the optimal deployment strategies for larviciding in different transmission and seasonality settings.

methodsA malaria transmission model, OpenMalaria, was used to simulate varying larviciding strategies and their impact on host-seeking mosquito densities, entomological inoculation rate (EIR) and malaria prevalence. Variations in coverage, duration, frequency, and timing of larviciding were simulated for three transmission intensities and four transmission seasonality profiles. Malaria transmission was assumed to follow rainfall with a lag of one month. Theoretical sub-Saharan African settings with Anopheles gambiae as the dominant vector were chosen to explore impact. Relative reduction compared to no larviciding was predicted for each indicator during the simulated larviciding period.

resultsLarviciding immediately reduced the predicted host-seeking mosquito densities and EIRs to a maximum that approached or exceeded the simulated coverage. Reduction in prevalence was delayed by approximately one month. The relative reduction in prevalence was up to four times higher at low than high transmission. Reducing larviciding frequency (i.e., from every 5 to 10 days) resulted in substantial loss in effectiveness (54, 45 and 53% loss of impact for host-seeking mosquito densities, EIR and prevalence, respectively). In seasonal settings the most effective timing of larviciding was during or at the beginning of the rainy season and least impactful during the dry season, assuming larviciding deployment for four months.

conclusionThe results highlight the critical role of deployment strategies on the impact of larviciding. Overall, larviciding would be more effective in settings with low and seasonal transmission, and at the beginning and during the peak densities of the target species populations. For maximum impact, implementers should consider the practical ranges of coverage, duration, frequency, and timing of larviciding in their respective contexts. More operational data and improved calibration would enable models to become a practical tool to support malaria control programmes in developing larviciding strategies that account for the diversity of contexts.

Indexed as

AnophelesInsecticidesAfrica South of the SaharaAnimalsCommunicable Disease ControlComputer SimulationLarvaMalariaModels, TheoreticalInsecticidesLarval source managementLarvicidingMalariaMathematical modellingOpenMalaria

Identifiers

PMID34315473
PMCPMC8314573
OpenAlexW3185241581

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.