Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39580442›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2024

The potential for attractive toxic sugar baits to complement core malaria interventions strategies: the need for more evidence.

Kennedy Zembere

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

1 author.

Kennedy ZembereMalawi Liverpool Wellcome Programme, Blantyre, Malawi. kzembere@mlw.mw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite its success, the increased use of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) has contributed to the development of insecticide resistance in malaria vectors and shifts in biting patterns of the primary malaria vectors. The limitations portrayed by ITNs and IRS suggest that their use alone will not reduce malaria to elimination levels as the remaining untargeted vectors continue to sustain residual malaria transmission (RMT). RMT is a big challenge to malaria elimination because even at 100% ITN and IRS coverage, malaria transmission persists as outdoor vectors avoid or reduce contact with such interventions. With the recent increase in the outdoor biting Anopheles arabiensis (hard to control using routine tools), in most African countries, including Malawi, novel tools such as the attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSBs), targeting outdoor biting vectors in addition to controlling indoor vectors are greatly needed to complement current tools, and could facilitate sustainable malaria control. The ATSB is one potential tool that has been tested in different settings with promising results, and more trials are ongoing in other African countries. ATSBs have been attributed to reductions of mosquito densities and malaria incidence with over 80% and 50%, respectively, and there is hope that by 2025, ATSBs would be considered for the World Health Organization prequalification listing as a complementary tool for mosquito control. This article highlights evidence that ATSBs can advance malaria elimination by complementing indoor-based tools. However, for effective control programmes and elimination campaigns, the use of ATSBs alone might not be adequate, and this article recommends the combined use of ATSBs with either IRS or ITNs.

Indexed as

AnophelesMalariaMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsAnimalsHumansInsecticidesSugarsInsecticidesSugarsAnophelesAttractive toxic sugar baitMosquito controlResidual mosquito control

Identifiers

PMID39580442
PMCPMC11585956

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.