Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36536428›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2022

Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda.

Henry Ddumba Mawejje, Jackson R Asiimwe, Patrick Kyagamba, Moses R Kamya, Philip J Rosenthal, Jo Lines, Grant Dorsey, Sarah G Staedke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Spatial and temporal distribution ofGigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Henry Ddumba MawejjeInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda. mawejjehenry@yahoo.com.
Jackson R AsiimweInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda.
Patrick KyagambaInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda.
Moses R KamyaInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda.
Philip J RosenthalDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Jo LinesLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Grant DorseyDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Sarah G StaedkeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration · UGLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Transmission ProjectU19AI089674 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MATTHEW G DORSEY, MOSES Robert KAMYA · 2010 to 2026
$29.3M
Training In Malaria Research in UgandaD43TW007375 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ROSENTHAL, PHILIP JON · 2005 to 2019
$2.9M
Training in malaria surveillance, epidemiology and implementation science research to strengthen malaria policy and control in UgandaD43TW010526 · FIC · MAKERERE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MATTHEW G DORSEY, MOSES Robert KAMYA · 2017 to 2026
$2.3M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW007375FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010526NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI089674
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethods used to sample mosquitoes are important to consider when estimating entomologic metrics. Human landing catches (HLCs) are considered the gold standard for collecting malaria vectors. However, HLCs are labour intensive, can expose collectors to transmission risk, and are difficult to implement at scale. This study compared alternative methods to HLCs for collecting Anopheles mosquitoes in eastern Uganda.

methodsBetween June and November 2021, mosquitoes were collected from randomly selected households in three parishes in Tororo and Busia districts. Mosquitoes were collected indoors and outdoors using HLCs in 16 households every 4 weeks. Additional collections were done indoors with prokopack aspirators, and outdoors with pit traps, in these 16 households every 2 weeks. CDC light trap collections were done indoors in 80 households every 4 weeks. Female Anopheles mosquitoes were identified morphologically and Anopheles gambiae sensu lato were speciated using PCR. Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite testing was done with ELISA.

resultsOverall, 4,891 female Anopheles were collected, including 3,318 indoors and 1,573 outdoors. Compared to indoor HLCs, vector density (mosquitoes per unit collection) was lower using CDC light traps (4.24 vs 2.96, density ratio [DR] 0.70, 95% CIs 0.63-0.77, p < 0.001) and prokopacks (4.24 vs 1.82, DR 0.43, 95% CIs 0.37-0.49, p < 0.001). Sporozoite rates were similar between indoor methods, although precision was limited. Compared to outdoor HLCs, vector density was higher using pit trap collections (3.53 vs 6.43, DR 1.82, 95% CIs 1.61-2.05, p < 0.001), while the sporozoite rate was lower (0.018 vs 0.004, rate ratio [RR] 0.23, 95% CIs 0.07-0.75, p = 0.008). Prokopacks collected a higher proportion of Anopheles funestus (75.0%) than indoor HLCs (25.8%), while pit traps collected a higher proportion of Anopheles arabiensis (84.3%) than outdoor HLCs (36.9%).

conclusionIn this setting, the density and species of mosquitoes collected with alternative methods varied, reflecting the feeding and resting characteristics of the common vectors and the different collection approaches. These differences could impact on the accuracy of entomological indicators and estimates of malaria transmission, when using the alternative methods for sampling mosquitos, as compared to HLCs.

Indexed as

AnophelesMalariaAnimalsFeeding BehaviorFemaleHumansMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsSporozoitesUgandaAnophelesCDC light trapHuman landing catchesPit trapProkopack aspirators

Identifiers

PMID36536428
PMCPMC9761930
OpenAlexW4311881006

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.