Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35858931›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2022

Less is more: repellent-treated fabric strips as a substitute for full screening of open eave gaps for indoor and outdoor protection from malaria mosquito bites.

Margaret Mendi Njoroge, Alexandra Hiscox, Adam Saddler, Willem Takken, Joop J A van Loon, Ulrike Fillinger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.

Margaret Mendi NjorogeInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Human Health Theme, P.O. Box 30772-00100, Nairobi, Kenya. mnjoroge@icipe.org.
Alexandra HiscoxWageningen University & Research, Laboratory of Entomology, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Adam SaddlerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4051 833, Basel, Switzerland.
Willem TakkenWageningen University & Research, Laboratory of Entomology, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Joop J A van LoonWageningen University & Research, Laboratory of Entomology, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Ulrike FillingerInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Human Health Theme, P.O. Box 30772-00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology · KEWageningen University & Research · NLIfakara Health Institute · TZUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding protection from malaria vector bites, both indoors and outdoors, is crucial to curbing malaria parasite transmission. Screening of house entry points, especially with incorporated insecticides, confers significant protection but remains a costly and labour-intensive application. Use of spatial repellents has shown promise in creating areas of protection in peri-domestic areas.

methodsThis study aimed at comparing the protection provided by transfluthrin-treated and untreated complete screens over open eave gaps with incomplete transfluthrin-treated eave strips as a potential replacement for a full screen. Human landing catches were implemented independently inside and outside an experimental hut under controlled semi-field conditions, with insectary-reared Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes.

resultsThe odds of a female mosquito finding a human volunteer indoors and attempting to bite were similar whether the eaves were completely open or there was an untreated fabric strip fixed around the eaves. However, when the eave gap was completely screened without insecticide, the odds of receiving a bite indoors were reduced by 70% (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20-0.47). Adding transfluthrin to the full screen, further increased the protection indoors, with the odds of receiving a bite reduced by 92% (0.08, 95% CI 0.04-0.16) compared to the untreated screen. Importantly, the same protection was conferred when only a narrow transfluthrin-treated fabric strip was loosely fixed around the eave gap (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.04-0.13). The impact of the transfluthrin treatment on outdoor biting was correlated with evening temperatures during the experiments. At lower evening temperatures, a transfluthrin-treated, complete screen provided moderate and variable protection from bites (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37-1.03), whilst at higher evening temperatures the odds of receiving a bite outdoors was over four times lower in the presence of transfluthrin, on either a full screen (OR 0.22 95% 0.12-0.38) or a fabric strip (OR 0.25, 95% 0.15-0.42), than when no treatment was present.

conclusionThe findings suggest that transfluthrin-treated fabric strips can provide a substitute for complete eave screens. They are a simple, easy-to-handle tool for protecting people from malaria mosquito bites indoors and potentially around the house in climatic areas where evening and night-time temperatures are relatively high.

Indexed as

AnophelesInsect Bites and StingsInsecticidesInsect RepellentsMalariaAnimalsFemaleHumansMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsInsecticidesInsect RepellentsEave screensEave stripsHouse screeningHuman landing catchesMalaria controlSpatial repellentTransfluthrin

Identifiers

PMID35858931
PMCPMC9297553
OpenAlexW4285999533

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.