ReviewJournal of medical entomology2024
Methods of sampling malaria vectors and their reliability in estimating entomological indices in Africa.
Review in Journal of medical entomology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variance partitioning reveals contrasting random effect contributions to the density and species composition of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes in western Burkina Faso.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Genetic Surveillance Reveals Differential Evolutionary Dynamic of Anopheles gambiae Under Contrasting Insecticidal Tools Used in Malaria Control.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Entomological Adaptive Surveillance Framework for malaria vector monitoring: a comparative field trial with routine surveillance in Ghana and Mozambique.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Exploring the epidemiological impact of attractive targeted sugar bait against malaria in combination with standard malaria control.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In efforts to intensify malaria control through vector control and hasten the progress towards elimination, the impact of control interventions needs to be evaluated. This requires sampling vector population using appropriate trapping methods. The aim of this article is to critically review methods of sampling malaria vectors and their reliability in estimating entomological indicators of malaria transmission in Africa. The standard methods are human landing catch (HLC), pyrethrum spray catch, and pit shelter for sampling host-seeking, indoor resting, and outdoor resting malaria vectors, respectively. However, these methods also have drawbacks such as exposure of collectors to infective mosquito bites, sampling bias, and feasibility issue. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light traps placed beside human-occupied bed nets have been used as an alternative to the HLC for sampling host-seeking malaria vectors. Efforts have been made to evaluate the CDC light traps against HLC to generate a conversion factor in order to use them as a proxy estimator of human biting rate and entomological inoculation rates in Africa. However, a reproducible conversion factor was not found, indicating that the trapping efficiency of the CDC light traps varies between different geographical locations. Several other alternative traps have also been developed and evaluated in different settings but most of them require further standardization. Among these, human-baited double net trap/CDC light trap combination and mosquito electrocuting trap have the potential to replace the HLC for routine malaria vector surveillance. Further research is needed to optimize the alternative sampling methods and/or develop new surveillance tools based on vector behavior.
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.