ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022
Evaluation of the efficacy of insecticide-treated scarves to protect children from the trachoma vector
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03813069 (A Within-subject Laboratory and Field Trial to Test the Use of Commercially Available Insect Repellents Against Contact From Musca Sorbens, the Putative Vector of Trachoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
A Within-subject Laboratory and Field Trial to Test the Use of Commercially Available Insect Repellents Against Contact From Musca Sorbens, the Putative Vector of Trachoma
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trachoma.Lancet (London, England) · 2025Review
- Article
- Field- and laboratory-based studies on correlates of Chlamydia trachomatis transmission by Musca sorbens: Determinants of fly-eye contact and investigations into fly carriage of elementary bodies.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Point Protection with Transfluthrin againstInsects · 2024Article
- Advanced visual sensing techniques for on-site detection of pesticide residue in water environments.Heliyon · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The eye-seeking fly Methods: We first conducted a series of phase I laboratory studies to inform our choice of field intervention. We then conducted a phase II randomised controlled trial testing the efficacy of permethrin-treated scarves (PTS) in reducing fly-face contact in Oromia, Ethiopia. Children aged 4-10 years in full health and with no known adverse reactions to permethrin or other insecticides were allocated to either arm using restricted randomisation. Intervention arm children wore Insect Shield® versatile wraps (as PTS) for 28 days. The primary outcomes, fly-eye, -nose and -mouth contact, were assessed on the first day (0/30/60/180 minutes), on day 7 and on day 28. All participants present per timepoint were included in analyses. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03813069). Findings: Participants were recruited to the field trial between 29/10/2019 and 01/11/2019, 58 were randomised to test or control arm. More fly (-eye, -nose and -mouth) contacts were observed in the PTS arm at baseline. After adjusting for baseline contact rates, across all timepoints there was a 35% decrease in fly-eye contacts in the PTS relative to control arm (rate ratio [RR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.83). Similar cross-timepoint reductions were seen for fly-nose and fly-mouth contacts (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.92 and RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.01, respectively). All children were included on day 0. Two in the control arm were absent on day 7, one left the study and four were excluded from analysis at day 28. No adverse events occurred in the trial. Interpretation: Funding: Wellcome Trust.
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.