Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34564266›Full record

ReviewInsects2021

Review and Meta-Analysis of the Evidence for Choosing between Specific Pyrethroids for Programmatic Purposes.

Natalie Lissenden, Mara D Kont, John Essandoh, Hanafy M Ismail, Thomas S Churcher, Ben Lambert, Audrey Lenhart, Philip J McCall, Catherine L Moyes, Mark J I Paine and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Characterizing pyrethroid resistance and mechanisms inCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 2 countries.

Natalie LissendenDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6578-5537
Mara D KontMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK.
John EssandohDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Hanafy M IsmailDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9953-9588
Thomas S ChurcherMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK.
Ben LambertMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK.
Audrey LenhartU.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Entomology Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9156-4228
Philip J McCallDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0007-3985
Catherine L MoyesBig Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Mark J I PaineDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2061-7713
Giorgio PraulinsDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2601-2598
David WeetmanDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Rosemary S LeesDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4232-9125
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBImperial College London · GBCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USOpen Data Institute · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Medical Research Council MR/V001264/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pyrethroid resistance is widespread in malaria vectors. However, differential mortality in discriminating dose assays to different pyrethroids is often observed in wild populations. When this occurs, it is unclear if this differential mortality should be interpreted as an indication of differential levels of susceptibility within the pyrethroid class, and if so, if countries should consider selecting one specific pyrethroid for programmatic use over another. A review of evidence from molecular studies, resistance testing with laboratory colonies and wild populations, and mosquito behavioural assays were conducted to answer these questions. Evidence suggested that in areas where pyrethroid resistance exists, different results in insecticide susceptibility assays with specific pyrethroids currently in common use (deltamethrin, permethrin, α-cypermethrin, and λ-cyhalothrin) are not necessarily indicative of an operationally relevant difference in potential performance. Consequently, it is not advisable to use rotation between these pyrethroids as an insecticide-resistance management strategy. Less commonly used pyrethroids (bifenthrin and etofenprox) may have sufficiently different modes of action, though further work is needed to examine how this may apply to insecticide resistance management.

Indexed as

Anophelesinsecticide resistanceinsecticide resistance managementmalariamalaria controlmosquitopyrethroidpyrethroid resistancevector control

Identifiers

PMID34564266
PMCPMC8465213
OpenAlexW3199396972

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.