ReviewFrontiers in insect science2024
A critical review of current laboratory methods used to evaluate mosquito repellents.
Review in Frontiers in insect science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The potential of essential oils as mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) bio-repellents: a systematic review.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2026Pooled it
- Repellent effects of insecticides against Aedes aegypti: a systematic review.Parasites & vectors · 2025Pooled it
- The evolution of mosquito baiting: from chemical and electronic methods toward AI.Parasites & vectors · 2026Review
- Repellent activity against Aedes aegypti and metabolomic profiling of Myrica gale L. essential oils from Irish boglands.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The efficacy of commercially available essential oil-based candles as spatial repellents againstFrontiers in insect science · 2026Article
- Do natural or synthetic excito-repellents work better? A study on coastal malaria vectorPeerJ · 2026Article
- Odor repellency and neuronal responses of commercial products towards Anopheles mosquitoes.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Comparison of statistical models for time-dependent repellency using the novel Pole-dance bioassay against Tetranychus urticae Koch.Experimental & applied acarology · 2025Article
- Making scents of mosquito repellents.Trends in parasitology · 2025Review
- Article
- Chemical analysis, repellent, larvicidal, and oviposition deterrent activities of plant essential oils againstFrontiers in insect science · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Pathogens transmitted by mosquitoes threaten human health around the globe. The use of effective mosquito repellents can protect individuals from contracting mosquito-borne diseases. Collecting evidence to confirm and quantify the effectiveness of a mosquito repellent is crucial and requires thorough standardized testing. There are multitudes of methods to test repellents that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Determining which type of test to conduct can be challenging and the collection of currently used and standardized methods has changed over time. Some of these methods can be powerful to rapidly screen numerous putative repellent treatments. Other methods can test mosquito responses to specific treatments and measure either spatial or contact repellency. A subset of these methods uses live animals or human volunteers to test the repellency of treatments. Assays can greatly vary in their affordability and accessibility for researchers and/or may require additional methods to confirm results. Here I present a critical review that covers some of the most frequently used laboratory assays from the last two decades. I discuss the experimental designs and highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of each type of method covered.
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.