SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2023
The biting rate of Aedes aegypti and its variability: A systematic review (1970-2022).
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species diversity and human biting rates of malaria and dengue vectors in central and northern Benin.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Temperature and competition: drivers in the ecological dynamics of Aedes mosquitoes and dengue spread.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Gaussian process emulation for exploring complex infectious disease models.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Ring vaccination and vector control as control strategies for potential yellow fever outbreak in an Asian city.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- Regional variation and epidemiological insights in malaria underestimation in Cameroon.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- Impact of asymptomatic infections on malaria transmission dynamics.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- Once bitten, twice shy: A modeling framework for incorporating heterogeneous mosquito biting into transmission models.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2025Article
- Agent-Based Modeling Approach for Population Dynamics of the Biological Vector Aedes Aegypti.Methods of information in medicine · 2025Article
- Effects of 4‑Alkoxy/Amino-7-Chloroquinolines onACS omega · 2025Article
- Intra-vector infection dynamics challenge how to model the extrinsic incubation period for major arboviruses: dengue, Zika, and chikungunya.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Gaussian Process Emulation for Exploring Complex Infectious Disease Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Modeling Intraday Aedes-human exposure dynamics enhances dengue risk prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Estimating per-infection cost and burden for dengue and Zika as a function of antibody-dependent enhancement.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Biting Hour and Host Seeking Behavior ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Dengue-mediated changes in the vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae): manipulation of transmission or infection by-product?Journal of medical entomology · 2025Review
- UnveilingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Mapping environmental suitability changes for arbovirus mosquitoes in Southeast Asia: 1960-2020.iScience · 2024Article
- The Dynamic Relationship between Dengue Virus and the Human Cutaneous Innate Immune Response.Viruses · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTransmission models have a long history in the study of mosquito-borne disease dynamics. The mosquito biting rate (MBR) is an important parameter in these models, however, estimating its value empirically is complex. Modeling studies obtain biting rate values from various types of studies, each of them having its strengths and limitations. Thus, understanding these study designs and the factors that contribute to MBR estimates and their variability is an important step towards standardizing these estimates. We do this for an important arbovirus vector Aedes aegypti. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe perform a systematic review using search terms such as 'biting rate' and 'biting frequency' combined with 'Aedes aegypti' ('Ae. aegypti' or 'A. aegypti'). We screened 3,201 articles from PubMed and ProQuest databases, of which 21 met our inclusion criteria. Two broader types of studies are identified: human landing catch (HLC) studies and multiple feeding studies. We analyze the biting rate data provided as well as the methodologies used in these studies to characterize the variability of these estimates across temporal, spatial, and environmental factors and to identify the strengths and limitations of existing methodologies. Based on these analyses, we present two approaches to estimate population mean per mosquito biting rate: one that combines studies estimating the number of bites taken per gonotrophic cycle and the gonotrophic cycle duration, and a second that uses data from histological studies. Based on one histological study dataset, we estimate biting rates of Ae. aegypti (0.41 and 0.35 bite/mosquito-day in Thailand and Puerto Rico, respectively). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our review reinforces the importance of engaging with vector biology when using mosquito biting rate data in transmission modeling studies. For Ae. aegypti, this includes understanding the variation of the gonotrophic cycle duration and the number of bites per gonotrophic cycle, as well as recognizing the potential for spatial and temporal variability. To address these variabilities, we advocate for site-specific data and the development of a standardized approach to estimate the biting rate.
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.