Trial reportMalaria journal2024
Deployment of attractive targeted sugar baits in western Zambia: installation, monitoring, removal, and disposal procedures during a Phase III cluster randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost and cost-effectiveness of attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSB) in the context of a phase III cluster randomized control trial in Western Province, Zambia.Malaria journal · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of attractive targeted sugar bait stations against malaria in Western Province Zambia: epidemiological findings from a two-arm cluster randomized phase III trial.Malaria journal · 2024Trial
- Evaluating trends in damage to attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) deployed during the second year of a two-year Phase III trial in Western Zambia.Malaria journal · 2024Trial
- Community acceptance of a novel malaria intervention, Attractive Targeted Sugar Baits, in the Zambia phase III trial.Malaria journal · 2024Trial
- Entomological effects of attractive targeted sugar bait station deployment in Western Zambia: vector surveillance findings from a two-arm cluster randomized phase III trial.Malaria journal · 2024Trial
- Outdoor attractive targeted sugar bait Phase III trials for malaria control in Kenya, Mali, and Zambia: An individual participant data meta-analysis.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Outdoor biting by malaria vectors: what are the options for intervention?Malaria journal · 2025Review
- Time to loss of physical integrity of attractive targeted sugar bait (ATSB) stations in Western Province, Zambia: a survival analysis.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Attractive targeted sugar baits series in Malaria Journal.Malaria journal · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAttractive Targeted Sugar Baits (ATSBs) offer a complementary vector control strategy to interventions targeting blood feeding or larval control by attacking the sugar feeding behaviour of adult mosquitoes using an attract-and-kill approach. Western Zambia was the first location to receive and deploy ATSB Sarabi version 1.2 stations in a Phase III cluster randomized controlled trial. This paper describes ATSB station installation, monitoring, removal, and disposal, quantifies ATSB station coverage, and reports major reasons for ATSB station replacement.
methodsATSB stations were deployed during two annual transmission seasons, through scheduled installation and removal campaigns. During deployment, monitoring was conducted per protocol to maintain high coverage of the ATSB stations in good condition. Routine monitoring visits during the trial captured details on ATSB station damage necessitating replacement following pre-defined replacement criteria. Annual cross-sectional household surveys measured ATSB station coverage during peak malaria transmission.
resultsA total of 67,945 ATSB stations were installed in Year 1 (41,695 initially installed+ 26,250 installed during monitoring) and 69,494 ATSB stations were installed in Year 2 (41,982 initially installed+ 27,512 installed during monitoring) across 35 intervention clusters to maintain high coverage of two ATSB stations in good condition per eligible household structure. The primary reasons for ATSB station replacement due to damage were holes/tears and presence of mold. Cross-sectional household surveys documented high coverage of ATSB stations across Year 1 and Year 2 with 93.1% of eligible structures having ≥ 2 ATSB stations in any condition. DISCUSSION: ATSB station deployment and monitoring efforts were conducted in the context of a controlled cRCT to assess potential product efficacy. Damage to ATSB stations during deployment required replacement of a subset of stations. High coverage of eligible structures was maintained over the two-year study despite replacement requirements. Additional research is needed to better understand the impact of damage on ATSB station effectiveness under programmatic conditions, including thresholds of threats to physical integrity and biological deterioration on product efficacy.
conclusionsOptimizing ATSB stations to address causes of damage and conducting implementation research to inform optimal delivery and cost-effective deployment will be important to facilitate scale-up of ATSB interventions.
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.