ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2024
The effectiveness of putative wearable repellent technologies to protect against mosquito biting and Aedes-borne diseases, and their economic impact.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Yellow Fever in Non-Human Primates: A Veterinary Guide from a One Health Perspective.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Viruses transmitted by mosquitoes threaten the health of millions of people worldwide. There is an urgent need for new tools for personal protection to ensure that vulnerable individuals are protected from infectious bites when outdoors. Here, we test the efficacy of wash-in and spray-on repellents against Aedes aegypti. When applied as a treatment on clothing as well as skin, the novel repellent compound delta-undecalactone provided up to 100% protection initially, and over 50% bite prevention for more than 7 hours. Mathematical modelling indicated that if such a repellent, with 100% initial efficacy, were to be applied twice daily by 80% of the population, more than 30% of Zika virus infections could be averted in an outbreak scenario with a basic reproduction number R0 = 2.2. In a less severe outbreak (R0 = 1.6), the same repellent regimen could avert 96% of infections. If there was much lower uptake, with only 40% of people using the repellent twice per day, just 4% of Zika cases would be averted (outbreak R0 = 2.2). Similar results were found in other scenarios tested for dengue and chikungunya outbreaks. Our model can be extrapolated to other repellents and guide future product development, and provides support to the concept that effective repellents that are used regularly and appropriately could be cost-effective interventions to prevent ill health from arboviral diseases.
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.