ArticleInternational health2024
Comparison of standard and modified human landing catching techniques for blackfly collection.
Article in International health, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review comparing the performance of alternative blackfly (Simulium) trapping methods against the standard human landing catch (HLC) for onchocerciasis surveillance.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Adult blackfly (Simulium damnosum s.l.) collection methods: overview and research needs.International health · 2026Review
- Important entomological events in the history of onchocerciasis ('river blindness').International health · 2026Review
- The risk of onchocerciasis infection by human population movements between high and low transmission settings in Ghana.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHuman landing catches (HLCs) are required to collect blackflies for entomological evaluation to verify onchocerciasis elimination. However, there are ethical concerns regarding exposure of vector collectors to infectious blackflies and safer alternative methods are needed. This study evaluated a modified HLC technique where collectors wore coloured trousers (blue, black or blue-black), protecting them from bites during fly collection, and their performance was compared with the standard.
methodsThe study was conducted in Makouopsap, Cameroon, in the Massangam health district for 4 months. Four collector pairs-one 'standard' (bare-legged) and three modified-were placed 50 m apart along known breeding sites on the Mbam and Nja Rivers. Collections were performed from 07:00 to 17:00 h, 4 d/month. Hourly rates of flies caught were analysed using a negative binomial generalised linear model to explore associations between flies caught and collection techniques and seasons.
resultsOverall, 17 246 blackflies were caught. There was no significant statistical difference in the number of blackflies and parous flies caught between black trousers and the standard. Thus there is a strong indication that wearing black trousers is a viable non-inferior alternative to the standard HLC.
conclusionsFurther studies are needed to confirm generalisability in different ecozones and transmission environments and among different blackfly species.
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.