SynthesisMalaria journal2025
Meta-analysis on the entomological effects of differentially treated ITNs in a multi-site experimental hut study in sub-Saharan Africa.
Synthesis in Malaria journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Portable experimental hut tents (PEHTs): a conceptual framework for improved malaria vector control decision-making with a review of fixed experimental hut sites in Africa.Parasites & vectors · 2026Review
- Assessments of Anopheles arabiensis behaviour around bed nets using partial adhesive treatments.Scientific reports · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestricting the placement of active ingredients (AIs) to specific panels on insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) has the potential to reduce the amount of AI required to treat a net. If the restricted placement of the AIs can exploit mosquito behaviour, particularly where they interact with the bed net interface, and not impact the net's effectiveness, then the reduction in AI could result in cost reductions.
methodsNine individual experimental hut trials were conducted to compare the efficacy of three different partially-treated net relative to fully treated nets; roof-only treated nets, side-only treated nets, and nets with treated roof and pyrethroid-only side panels. These trials were conducted on a range of net products with different AIs, across a range of geographies in Africa (East and West), vector species (Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles coluzzii, Anopheles arabiensis, and Anopheles funestus), hut designs (East and West African style) and hosts (cows and humans). The combined data from these trials were analysed in a meta-analysis, and odds ratios for the effect of the different net designs on mortality and blood-feeding were estimated using mixed effects logistic regression.
resultsThe results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that fully treated nets provide greater mosquito killing and reduction in blood-feeding effects than any configuration of insecticide treatment restricted to specific panels.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis showed that partially-treated net that restrict the insecticide treatment to specific panels of an ITN do not give equivalency or superiority in either mortality or blood-feeding inhibition to fully treated nets. The implications of these findings are discussed.
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.