Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40073043›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2025

Evaluation of long lasting insecticidal nets in experimental huts and WHO PQT/VCP compliance: A systematic review.

Divya Teja Koppula, Ananganallur Nagarajan Shriram, Amala Ramasamy, Ashwani Kumar, Manju Rahi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Evolutionary Trajectory ofBiomedicines · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Divya Teja KoppulaICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Ananganallur Nagarajan ShriramICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0996-2447
Amala RamasamyICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Ashwani KumarICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2485-7581
Manju RahiICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malaria control in highly endemic regions relies heavily on vector control tools, particularly LLINs. The effectiveness of LLINs varies by eco-epidemiological conditions and brands. A comprehensive review of WHO interim-approved LLIN brands is necessary to address this variability. This systematic review screened 145 articles, refining them to 27 eligible publications, to assess the efficacy of WHO-recommended LLINs, focusing on synthetic pyrethroids and synergists like Piperonyl Butoxide or Pyriproxyfen. The review demonstrated that LLINs impregnated with synthetic pyrethroids, especially when used with synergists, are more effective than regular LLINs. However, adherence to WHO PQT/VCP (World Health Organization Prequalification Unit/Vector Control Product) checklists was inconsistent. Several LLIN pairs which includes candidate and comparator nets showed equal efficacy (100% in both arms), including Olyset Plus vs. Olyset Net, DuraNet vs. PermaNet 3.0, Interceptor G2 vs. Interceptor, MagNet vs. DuraNet, Dawa Plus 3.0 vs. Dawa Plus 2.0, and Veerralin vs. PermaNet 3.0 in terms of mosquito mortality. Significant efficacy differences were noted between various bed net pairs: Interceptor vs CTN (RR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.28-1.66); Olyset Net Duo vs Olyset Net (RR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18); ICON Maxx vs CTN polyester (RR: 7.7, 95% CI: 3.6-16.31); Dawa Plus 3.0 vs Dawa Plus 2.0 (RR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.34-3.15); Interceptor G2 vs Interceptor G1 (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.77-0.96). These findings inform the development of improved net designs and ensure alignment with WHO guidelines, enhancing vector control measures. The review supports improved malaria control strategies and sustained LLIN utilization, highlighting the need for LLIN manufacturers to align with WHO guidelines.

Indexed as

InsecticidesInsecticide-Treated BednetsMalariaMosquito ControlAnimalsHumansPyrethrinsWorld Health OrganizationInsecticidesPyrethrins

Identifiers

PMID40073043
PMCPMC11902051

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.