Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39027087›Full record

ReviewCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases2024

Occupational exposure to malaria, leishmaniasis and arbovirus vectors in endemic regions: A systematic review.

Daniel Msellemu, Marcel Tanner, Rajpal Yadav, Sarah J Moore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Mixed malaria infections: A critical review and Detect-Characterise-Act surveillance framework.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
  8. Epidemiology of malaria and leishmaniasis in Thailand (2004-2025): A systematic review.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Daniel MsellemuVector Control Product Testing Unit, Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Tanzania.
Marcel TannerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, 4123, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Rajpal YadavDepartment of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sarah J MooreVector Control Product Testing Unit, Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Tanzania.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vector-borne diseases, including dengue, leishmaniasis and malaria, may be more common among individuals whose occupations or behaviours bring them into frequent contact with these disease vectors outside of their homes. A systematic review was conducted to ascertain at-risk occupations and situations that put individuals at increased risk of exposure to these disease vectors in endemic regions and identify the most suitable interventions for each exposure. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines on articles published between 1945 and October 2021, searched in 16 online databases. The primary outcome was incidence or prevalence of dengue, leishmaniasis or malaria. The review excluded ecological and qualitative studies, abstracts only, letters, commentaries, reviews, and studies of laboratory-acquired infections. Studies were appraised, data extracted, and a descriptive analysis conducted. Bite interventions for each risk group were assessed. A total of 1170 articles were screened and 99 included. Malaria, leishmaniasis and dengue were presented in 47, 41 and 24 articles, respectively; some articles presented multiple conditions. The most represented populations were soldiers, 38% (43 of 112 studies); refugees and travellers, 15% (17) each; migrant workers, 12.5% (14); miners, 9% (10); farmers, 5% (6); rubber tappers and missionaries, 1.8% (2) each; and forest workers, 0.9% (1). Risk of exposure was categorised into round-the-clock or specific times of day/night dependent on occupation. Exposure to these vectors presents a critical and understudied concern for outdoor workers and mobile populations. When devising interventions to provide round-the-clock vector bite protection, two populations are considered. First, mobile populations, characterized by their high mobility, may find potential benefits in insecticide-treated clothing, though more research and optimization are essential. Treated clothing offers personal vector protection and holds promise for economically disadvantaged individuals, especially when enabling them to self-treat their clothing to repel vectors. Secondly, semi-permanent and permanent settlement populations can receive a combination of interventions that offer both personal and community protection, including spatial repellents, suitable for extended stays. Existing research is heavily biased towards tourism and the military, diverting attention and resources from vulnerable populations where these interventions are most required like refugee populations as well as those residing in sub-Saharan Africa.

Indexed as

DengueInsecticide-treated clothingLeishmaniasisMalariaOccupationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39027087
PMCPMC11252614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.