ArticleBMC public health2022
Survival of eight LLIN brands 6, 12, 24 and 36 months after a mass distribution campaign in rural and urban settings in Senegal.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Where did the nets go? Tracing long-lasting insecticidal net migration on Bioko Island.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Exploring factors affecting malaria vaccination intention and COVID-19 vaccine uptake: evidence from a joint analysis in rural Senegal.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Durability and effectiveness of insecticide-treated nets in Mali: a longitudinal gSG6-P1 biomarker-based assessment of children's exposure to Anopheles bites.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Acceptability and preferences for dual-active ingredient long-lasting insecticidal nets in rural Tanzania: a mixed-methods study.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Inequity in the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets before and after nationwide mass distribution campaign in 48 districts of Uganda: VERSE toolkit analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Targeted distribution of long-lasting insecticidal nets by community health workers to sustain household coverage: A pilot feasibility study in Western Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Malaria prevalence and use of control measures in an area with persistent transmission in Senegal.PloS one · 2024Article
- Population knowledge, attitudes and practices towards malaria prevention in the locality of Makenene, Centre-Cameroon.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the residual efficacy and physical durability of five long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) in Senegal.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLong lasting insecticidal nets (LLIN) are one of the core components of global malaria prevention and control. The lifespan of LLIN varies widely depending on the population or environment, and randomized studies are required to compare LLIN inaccording to arbitrary thresholds households under different field conditions. This study investigated survival of different LLIN brands in Senegal.
methodsTen thousand six hundred eight LLINs were distributed in five regions, each stratified by rural and urban setting. As part of the longitudinal follow-up, 2222 nets were randomly sampled and monitored from 6 to 36 months. Using random effects for households, Bayesian models were used to estimate independent survival by net type (Interceptor®, Life Net®, MAGNet™, Netprotect®, Olyset® Net, PermaNet® 2.0 R, PermaNet® 2.0 C, Yorkool® LN) and by area (rural/urban). In addition to survival, median survival time and attrition of each LLIN brand was determined. Attrition was defined as nets that were missing because they were reported given away, destroyed and thrown away, or repurposed.
resultsThree net types had a proportion of survival above 80% after 24 months: Interceptor®87.8% (95% CI 80-93.4); conical PermaNet® 2.0 86.9% (95% CI 79.3-92.4) and Life Net® 85.6% (95% CI 75-93). At 36 months, conical PermaNet® 2.0 maintained a good survival rate, 79.5% (95% CI 65.9-88.8). The attrition due to redistributed nets showed that the two conical net types (PermaNet® 2.0 and Interceptor®) were more often retained by households and their median retention time was well above 3 years (median survival time = 3.5 years for PermaNet® 2.0 and median survival time = 4 years for Interceptor®). Despite this good retention, Interceptor® had weak physical integrity and its median survival due to wear and tear was below 3 years (median survival time = 2.4 years). The odds ratio of survival was 2.5 times higher in rural settings than in urban settings (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.7-3.7).
conclusionsDifferences in survival among LLIN may be driven by brand, shape or environmental setting. In this study in Senegal, conical PermaNet® 2.0 were retained in households while rectangular PermaNet® 2.0 had lower retention, suggesting that net shape may play a role in retention and should be further investigated. Distribution of preferred LLIN shape, accompanied by good communication on care and repair, could lead to increased effective lifespan, and allow for longer intervals between universal coverage campaigns.
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.