ArticleScientific reports2025
Effects of indoor cooking with liquefied petroleum gas versus solid biomass on mosquito and fly density in households.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cleaner cooking fuels are increasingly promoted to reduce household air pollution-related health effects, but evidence is limited whether changes in cooking fuels could alter vector behavior and human exposure to vector-borne diseases. In the context of a randomized controlled trial in eastern Rwanda, we evaluated differences in mosquito and fly density in 109 intervention houses which received liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves, a continuous fuel supply, and were encouraged to cook indoors compared to 102 control households which continued cooking with biomass fuels, primarily outdoors. Anopheles mosquito densities were similar in the intervention group compared to the control group (RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.33-2.55), as were culicine densities (RR = 1.17, 95%CI: 0.83-1.63). In contrast, synanthropic fly densities were 69% lower in intervention households (RR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.22-0.45). In an exploratory analysis of houses that cooked indoors, Anopheles densities were higher but not significantly different in intervention houses compared to control houses, whereas culicine and synanthropic fly densities were similar. In settings where outdoor cooking with biomass fuels is common, switching to indoor cooking with cleaner-burning fuels does not significantly increase indoor exposure to Anopheles or culicine mosquitoes, while it could significantly reduce exposure to synanthropic flies in kitchen areas.
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.