Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38769342›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Evaluating human landing catches as a measure of mosquito biting and the importance of considering additional modes of action.

Emma L Fairbanks, Mgeni M Tambwe, Jason Moore, Ahmed Mpelepele, Neil F Lobo, Rajabu Mashauri, Nakul Chitnis, Sarah J Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Emma L FairbanksDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, Allschwill, Basel, 4123, Switzerland. emma-louise.fairbanks@warwick.ac.uk.
Mgeni M TambweDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, Allschwill, Basel, 4123, Switzerland.
Jason MooreDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, Allschwill, Basel, 4123, Switzerland.
Ahmed MpelepeleVector Control Product Testing Unit, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania.
Neil F LoboEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA.
Rajabu MashauriVector Control Product Testing Unit, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania.
Nakul ChitnisDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, Allschwill, Basel, 4123, Switzerland.
Sarah J MooreDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, Allschwill, Basel, 4123, Switzerland.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation INV025569Horserace Betting Levy Board vet/prj/809
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Entomological evaluations of vector control tools often use human landing catches (HLCs) as a standard measure of a direct human-vector contact. However, some tools have additional characteristics, such as mortality, and HLCS are not sensitive for measuring other effects beyond landing inhibition. Therefore, additional measures may need to be considered when evaluating these tools for public health use. This study has two main aims (1) the evaluate the accuracy of HLCs as a proxy for feeding and (2) to compare the predicted reduction in vectorial capacity when we do and do not consider these additional characteristics. To achieve this, we analyse previously published semi-field data from an experiment which used HLCs and another where mosquitoes were allowed to feed in the presence of different dosages of the volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent, transfluthrin. We compare results for two mathematical models: one which only considers the reduction in feeding effect and one which also considers mortality before and after feeding (using data gathered by the aspiration of mosquitoes after the semi-field feeding/landing period and 24 h survival monitoring). These Bayesian hierarchical models are parameterised using Bayesian inference. We observe that, for susceptible mosquitoes, reduction in landing is underestimated by HLCs. For knockdown resistant mosquitoes the relationship is less clear; with HLCs sometimes appearing to overestimate this characteristic. We find HLCs tend to under-predict the relative reduction in vectorial capacity in susceptible mosquitoes while over-predicting this impact in knockdown-resistant mosquitoes. Models without secondary effects have lower predicted relative reductions in vectorial capacities. Overall, this study highlights the importance of considering additional characteristics to reduction in biting of volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents. We recommend that these are considered when evaluating novel vector control tools.

Indexed as

Insect Bites and StingsMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsAnimalsCyclopropanesFeeding BehaviorFluorobenzenesHumansInsecticidesInsect RepellentsModels, TheoreticalCyclopropanesFluorobenzenesInsecticidesInsect RepellentstransfluthrinAnophelesEntomological trialsMalariaSpatial repellentVector controlVolatile pyrethroid

Identifiers

PMID38769342
PMCPMC11106315

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.