Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39175014›Full record

ReviewMalaria journal2024

A review of selective indoor residual spraying for malaria control.

Seth R Irish, Derric Nimmo, Jameel Bharmel, Frederic Tripet, Pie Müller, Pablo Manrique-Saide, Sarah J Moore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Estimating mosquito bionomics parameters with a hierarchical Bayesian model.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

7 authors.

Seth R IrishSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, 4123, Allschwil, Switzerland. sethirish@gmail.com.
Derric NimmoIVCC, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. derric.nimmo@ivcc.com.
Jameel BharmelIVCC, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Frederic TripetSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, 4123, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Pie MüllerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, 4123, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Pablo Manrique-SaideUnidad Colaborativa para Bioensayos Entomológicos, Campus de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México.
Sarah J MooreSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, 4123, Allschwil, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndoor residual spraying (IRS) is one of the most effective malaria control tools. However, its application has become limited to specific contexts due to the increased costs of IRS products and implementation programmes. Selective spraying-selective spray targeted to particular areas/surfaces of dwellings-has been proposed to maintain the malaria control and resistance-management benefits of IRS while decreasing the costs of the intervention.

methodsA literature search was conducted to find (1) studies that assessed the resting behaviour of Anopheles mosquitoes and (2) studies that evaluated the impact of selective spraying on entomological and malaria outcomes. Additional articles were identified through hand searches of all references cited in articles identified through the initial search. A cost model was developed from PMI VectorLink IRS country programmes, and comparative cost analysis reports to describe the overall cost benefits of selective IRS.

resultsIn some studies, there appeared to be a clear resting preference for certain Anopheles species in terms of the height at which they rested. However, for other species, and particularly the major African malaria vectors, a clear resting pattern was not detected. Furthermore, resting behaviour was not measured in a standardized way. For the selective spray studies that were assessed, there was a wide range of spray configurations, which complicates the comparison of methods. Many of these spray techniques were effective and resulted in reported 25-68% cost savings and reduced use of insecticide. The reported cost savings in the literature do not always consider all of the IRS implementation costs. Using the IRS cost model, these savings ranged from 17 to 29% for programs that targeted Anopheles spp. and 18-41% for programmes that targeted Aedes aegypti.

conclusionsResting behaviour is generally measured in a simplistic way; noting the resting spot of mosquitoes in the morning. This is likely an oversimplification, and there is a need for better monitoring of resting mosquitoes. This may improve the target surface for selective spray techniques, which could reduce the cost of IRS while maintaining its effectiveness. Reporting of cost savings should be calculated considering the entire implementation costs, and a cost model was provided for future calculations.

Indexed as

AnophelesInsecticidesMalariaMosquito ControlAnimalsHumansMosquito VectorsInsecticidesAnophelesIndoor residual sprayingMalariaPartial sprayingRestingSelective spraying

Identifiers

PMID39175014
PMCPMC11342629

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.