ArticlePeerJ2022
Semi-field evaluation of human landing catches
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of Anopheles abundance and meta-analysis of nonhuman primate malaria infection in mosquitoes in Thailand.Parasites & vectors · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Zoonotic malaria in Southeast Asia's changing landscapes: vector complexity, challenges, and future strategies.Parasites & vectors · 2026Review
- Multi-pronged surveillance to understand the spatiotemporal correlations among macaques, vectors and humans in Plasmodium knowlesi malaria transmission.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- The effect of novel mosquito bite prevention tools on Anopheles minimus landing and key secondary endpoints: semi-field evaluations in Thailand.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- Field evaluation of a volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent and etofenprox treated clothing for outdoor protection against forest malaria vectors in Cambodia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluating human landing catches as a measure of mosquito biting and the importance of considering additional modes of action.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Whilst the human landing catch (HLC) technique is considered the 'gold standard' for estimating human-biting rates, it is labor-intensive and fraught with potential risk of exposure to infectious mosquito bites. This study evaluated the feasibility and performance of an alternative method, the human double net trap (HDNT) relative to HLC for monitoring host-seeking malaria vectors of the Methods: HDNT and HLC were positioned in two rooms, 30 m apart at both ends of the SFS. Two human volunteers were rotated between both traps and collected released mosquitoes ( Results: There were 82.80% (2,136/2,580) of recaptures of wild-caught and 94.50% (2,835/3,000) of laboratory-reared mosquitoes that were molecularly identified as Conclusion: HDNT caught proportionately fewer
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.