Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37964334›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2023

Efficacy of 3D screens for sustainable mosquito control: a semi-field experimental hut evaluation in northeastern Tanzania.

Subam Kathet, Wema Sudi, Victor Mwingira, Patrick Tungu, Mikko Aalto, Tomi Hakala, Markku Honkala, Robert Malima, William Kisinza, Seppo Meri and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Subam KathetDepartment of Bacteriology and Immunology, Haartman Institute, and Translational Immunology Research Program, University of Helsinki, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Wema SudiAmani Medical Research Centre, National Institute for Medical Research, Muheza, Tanzania.
Victor MwingiraAmani Medical Research Centre, National Institute for Medical Research, Muheza, Tanzania.
Patrick TunguAmani Medical Research Centre, National Institute for Medical Research, Muheza, Tanzania.
Mikko AaltoEast Africa University, Bosaso, Somalia.
Tomi HakalaDepartment of Materials Science, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 589, 33101, Tampere, Finland.
Markku HonkalaDepartment of Materials Science, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 589, 33101, Tampere, Finland.
Robert MalimaAmani Medical Research Centre, National Institute for Medical Research, Muheza, Tanzania.
William KisinzaAmani Medical Research Centre, National Institute for Medical Research, Muheza, Tanzania.
Seppo Meri *Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Haartman Institute, and Translational Immunology Research Program, University of Helsinki, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Ayman Khattab *Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Haartman Institute, and Translational Immunology Research Program, University of Helsinki, 00014, Helsinki, Finland. ayman.khattab@helsinki.fi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA three-dimensional window screen (3D-Screen) has been developed to create a window double-screen trap (3D-WDST), effectively capturing and preventing the escape of mosquitoes. A 2015 laboratory study demonstrated the 3D-Screen's efficacy, capturing 92% of mosquitoes in a double-screen setup during wind tunnel assays. To further evaluate its effectiveness, phase II experimental hut trials were conducted in Muheza, Tanzania.

methodsThree experimental hut trials were carried out between 2016 and 2017. Trial I tested two versions of the 3D-WDST in huts with open or closed eaves, with one version using a single 3D-Screen and the other using two 3D-Screens. Trial II examined the 3D-WDST with two 3D-Screens in huts with or without baffles, while Trial III compared handmade and machine-made 3D structures. Mosquito capturing efficacy of the 3D-WDST was measured by comparing the number of mosquitoes collected in the test hut to a control hut with standard exit traps.

resultsTrial I showed that the 3D-WDST with two 3D-Screens used in huts with open eaves achieved the highest mosquito-capturing efficacy. This treatment captured 33.11% (CI 7.40-58.81) of female anophelines relative to the total collected in this hut (3D-WDST and room collections) and 27.27% (CI 4.23-50.31) of female anophelines relative to the total collected in the control hut (exit traps, room, and verandahs collections). In Trial II, the two 3D-Screens version of the 3D-WDST captured 70.32% (CI 56.87-83.77) and 51.07% (CI 21.72-80.41) of female anophelines in huts with and without baffles, respectively. Compared to the control hut, the capturing efficacy for female anophelines was 138.6% (37.23-239.9) and 42.41% (14.77-70.05) for huts with and without baffles, respectively. Trial III demonstrated similar performance between hand- and machine-made 3D structures.

conclusionsThe 3D-WDST proved effective in capturing malaria vectors under semi-field experimental hut conditions. Using 3D-Screens on both sides of the window openings was more effective than using a single-sided 3D-Screen. Additionally, both hand- and machine-made 3D structures exhibited equally effective performance, supporting the production of durable cones on an industrial scale for future large-scale studies evaluating the 3D-WDST at the community level.

Indexed as

AnophelesInsecticidesMalariaAnimalsFemaleMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsTanzaniaInsecticides3D-Screens3D-WDSTAnophelesExperimental hutsMalariaMosquito controlMuhezaNortheastern TanzaniaWindow double screens

Identifiers

PMID37964334
PMCPMC10647037

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.