ArticleJournal of insect science (Online)2023
Do it yourself: fabricating and evaluating a mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) blood-feeding device to replace a commercial option.
Article in Journal of insect science (Online), 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory maintenance and care of Rhodnius prolixus (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) and other Triatominae.Journal of medical entomology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tools for rearing hematophagous insects, such as mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), in an insectary are essential for research and operational evaluations in vector biology and control. There is an abundance of low-cost options for practitioners without conventional infrastructure. However, few midrange options exist that provide a balance of efficiency and low material waste. We present here a reproducible design for an electrically powered blood-feeding device that offers long-term reusability, low material waste, and customizability for different species or experiments. The limitation is the requirement for electricity, but the gain is a simple, low-skill device that can be modified as needed. To validate the design, assessments of feeding angle and blood-feeding success were compared between the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District artificial membrane feeder (SLAM) and a commercial system (Hemotek). Engorgement in Aedes aegypti (80-90%), Culex pipiens (50-80%), and Culex tarsalis (30-75%) was similar between the 2 units, resulting in nearly identical fecundity outcomes between devices. Additionally, 45° angles were more successful, generally, than presenting the feeders flat or vertical to the mosquitoes (df3,48, P = 1.014 × 10-15). This angle is simple to present with the SLAM device. Materials for in-house reproduction of the SLAM system are now widely available in regions with access to e-commerce and shipped goods. This results in a device schematic that should fit well into a relatively modular, do-it-yourself paradigm where the practitioner needs only to assemble some materials without complex engineering. This article provides schematics, cost comparison, and validation of the in-house-made SLAM system.
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.