Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35055850›Full record

ArticleInsects2021

Developing Consensus Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to Evaluate New Types of Insecticide-Treated Nets.

Natalie Lissenden, Jennifer S Armistead, Katherine Gleave, Seth R Irish, Jackline L Martin, Louisa A Messenger, Sarah J Moore, Corine Ngufor, Natacha Protopopoff, Richard Oxborough and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insects, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Bio-efficacy of OlysetTropical medicine and health · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

12 authors.

Natalie LissendenDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6578-5537
Jennifer S ArmisteadU.S. President's Malaria Initiative, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20547, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0542-6401
Katherine GleaveDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Seth R IrishU.S. President's Malaria Initiative, Entomology Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA.
Jackline L MartinKilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, National Institute for Medical Research, Moshi P.O. Box 2240, Tanzania.
Louisa A MessengerU.S. President's Malaria Initiative, Entomology Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3107-6214
Sarah J MooreVector Control Product Testing Unit, Environmental Health and Ecological Science Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Bagamoyo P.O. Box 74, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0002-0938-6654
Corine NguforDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7755-9609
Natacha ProtopopoffDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Richard OxboroughPMI VectorLink Project, Abt Associates, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
Angus SpiersInnovation to Impact, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Rosemary S LeesDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4232-9125

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-004350Medical Research Council MR/R006040/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In response to growing concerns over the sustained effectiveness of pyrethroid-only based control tools, new products are being developed and evaluated. Some examples of these are dual-active ingredient (AI) insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) which contain secondary insecticides, or synergist ITNs which contain insecticide synergist, both in combination with a pyrethroid. These net types are often termed 'next-generation' insecticide-treated nets. Several of these new types of ITNs are being evaluated in large-scale randomized control trials (RCTs) and pilot deployment schemes at a country level. However, no methods for measuring the biological durability of the AIs or synergists on these products are currently recommended. In this publication, we describe a pipeline used to collate and interrogate several different methods to produce a singular 'consensus standard operating procedure (SOP)', for monitoring the biological durability of three new types of ITNs: pyrethroid + piperonyl butoxide (PBO), pyrethroid + pyriproxyfen (PPF), and pyrethroid + chlorfenapyr (CFP). This process, convened under the auspices of the Innovation to Impact programme, sought to align methodologies used for conducting durability monitoring activities of next-generation ITNs.

Indexed as

dual-AI ITNdurability monitoringinsecticide resistance management (IRM)insecticide-treated net (ITN)method validationPBO ITNsynergist ITN

Identifiers

PMID35055850
PMCPMC8778287

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.