ArticleInsects2022
The MosHouse
Article in Insects, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and field evaluation of a novel sugar bait device for controlling residential vector mosquitoes in Zhejiang Province, China.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Arbovirus diseases, such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika, are important public health problems. Controlling the major vector, Aedes aegypti, is the only approach to suppressing these diseases. The surveillance of this mosquito species needs effective collecting methods. In this study, a simple MosHouse sticky trap was evaluated in a semi-field condition. Our results demonstrated the efficiency of this trap in collecting Ae. aegypti males, and no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the numbers of males was detected when compared with the widely used BG- Sentinel trap. However, there were significantly lower numbers of females (p < 0.05) collected using the MosHouse trap when compared to the BG-Sentinel trap. We also found a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the collected numbers between irradiated and non-irradiated males. More irradiated males were collected in the MosHouse traps. The improvement of male collection was achieved with the addition of a sugar stick and sticky flags. Significantly higher numbers of males were collected in the MosHouse trap with sticky flags compared to the original one when they were released independently of females, but both were collected in higher numbers when they were released together (p < 0.05). In conclusion, our experiments demonstrated that the MosHouse trap could sample Ae. aegypti, especially males, as efficiently as the established BG-Sentinel trap, while the cost was more than 50 times lower, showing the potential of the MosHouse trap for improved Ae. aegypti male and female surveillance with very large numbers of traps at affordable costs. In addition, significantly (p < 0.001) increased male sampling was achieved by adding an external sticky flag on the MosHouse trap, providing an avenue for further development of the novel male-trapping strategy.
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.