Trial reportScientific reports2023
Field performance of three mosquito collection methods for assessing the entomological efficacy of dual-active ingredient long-lasting insecticidal nets.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and Efficacy of Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets for Malaria Control in Africa: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Updating Anopheles funestus group members in Burkina Faso: species distribution and contribution to malaria transmission.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Spatial Distribution and Biodiversity ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Impact of Late-Rainy Season Indoor Residual Spraying on Holoendemic Malaria Transmission: A Cohort Study in Northern Zambia.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selection of mosquito collection methods is of crucial importance to evaluate the impact of vector control tools on entomological outcomes. During a cluster randomised control trial evaluating the relative efficacy of two dual-active ingredient (a.i.) long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) compared to pyrethroid-only LLINs, we assessed the performance of different mosquito collection methods: Human landing catches (HLC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light traps, and pyrethrum spray catches (PSC). Anopheles mosquitoes were collected using three collection methods in 4 houses, in each of the 60 trial clusters at baseline and every quarter for 24 months using PSCs and HLCs, while CDC light traps were performed during two quarters only. Mean density of vectors collected per method per night was the highest with HLCs (15.9), followed by CDC light traps (6.8); with PSCs (1.1) collecting 10 times less mosquitoes than HLCs. All three collection methods collected fewer mosquitoes in the Interceptor G2
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.