Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36369172›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2022

Comparative evaluation of different versions of exposure-free mosquito electrocuting traps and barrier screen trap for monitoring outdoor densities and biting time phenotypes by malaria and filariasis vectors in Tanzania.

Victoria Githu, Maneno E Baravuga, Asiya Mbarawa, Hajirani M Msuya, Yeromin P Mlacha, Prosper P Chaki, Samson Kiware, Nosrat Mirzai, Heather M Ferguson, Nicodem J Govella

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Victoria GithuEnvironmental Health, and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, 78373, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania. vjames@ihi.or.tz.
Maneno E BaravugaEnvironmental Health, and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, 78373, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Asiya MbarawaEnvironmental Health, and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, 78373, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Hajirani M MsuyaEnvironmental Health, and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, 78373, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Yeromin P MlachaEnvironmental Health, and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, 78373, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Prosper P ChakiEnvironmental Health, and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, 78373, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Samson KiwareEnvironmental Health, and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, 78373, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Nosrat MirzaiBioelectronics Unit, University of Glasgow, Graham Kerr Building, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK.
Heather M FergusonInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Heath and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Nicodem J GovellaEnvironmental Health, and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, 78373, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Ifakara Health Institute · TZUniversity of Glasgow · GBNelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology · TZ

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation INV-016807Medical Research Council MR/T008873/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimating human exposure to mosquito vectors is crucial for the prediction of malaria transmission and intervention impact. The human landing catch method is frequently used to directly measure estimate exposure rates; however, there has been an increasing shift from this method to exposure-free alternatives, such as the mosquito electrocuting traps (MET) and other approaches. While these latter methods can provide robust and representative values of human exposure and mosquito density, they often still require a human volunteer, which poses logistical challenges. Additionally, in the case of the MET, the early MET prototype (METe) required human volunteers to wear protective clothing that could be uncomfortable. We investigated two alternative trapping approaches to address these challenges by comparing the performance of the METe prototype to: (i) a modified caged MET prototype that offers full protection to users (METc) and (ii) a barrier screen trap (BST) designed to passively sample (host-seeking and blood-fed) mosquitoes outdoors without requiring a human participant.

methodsThe relative performance of the METe, METc and BST were evaluated in a 3 × 3 Latin square field experiment design conducted in south-eastern Tanzania over 12 nights of sampling. The outcomes of interest were the nightly catch of mosquitoes and biting time estimates.

resultsThe METc and BST caught similar numbers of An. arabiensis as the METe (relative ratio [RR] = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-1.39, P = 0.38 and RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.63-2.04, P = 0.69, respectively). Similarly, the METc and BST caught similar numbers of Culex spp. as the METe (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.62-1.22, P = 0.42 and RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.57-1.12, P = 0.199, respectively). All three trapping methods indicated a similar pattern of biting activity by An. arabiensis and Culex spp., characterized by biting starting in the early evening (18:00-22:00), peaking when people are typically sleeping (22:00-05:00) and dropping off drastically toward the morning (05:00-07:00).

conclusionsThe modifications made to the METe design to improve user comfort and remove the need for protective clothing did not result in an underestimation of mosquito vector abundance nor misrepresentation of their biting time pattern. We recommend the METc for use over the METe design. Similarly, the BST demonstrated potential for monitoring malaria and filariasis vector densities in Tanzania.

Indexed as

AnophelesCulexFilariasisMalariaNematode InfectionsAnimalsHumansMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsPhenotypeTanzaniaAnopheles arabiensisBarrier screen trapBiting timesCulex spp.Malaria vectorsMosquito electrocuting trapsMosquito samplingSouthern-eastern TanzaniaTrapping methods

Identifiers

PMID36369172
PMCPMC9652990
OpenAlexW4309181339

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.