SynthesisEBioMedicine2025
Volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents for preventing mosquito bites: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in EBioMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07712263 (Integrating the Guardian Spatial Emanator Within AVENIR II), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Integrating the Guardian Spatial Emanator Within AVENIR II
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents to reduce exposure to mosquito and sand fly vectors and human infection risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Parasites & vectors · 2026Pooled it
- Experimental hut evaluation of mosquito shield, a transfluthrin spatial emanator, for control of wild pyrethroid resistant malaria vectors in Benin.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Nationally representative programmatic surveillance of mosquito and human behaviours that influence human exposure to malaria transmission and the impact of vector control across Tanzania.Malaria journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
50 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVolatile pyrethroid spatial repellents (VPSRs) can prevent mosquito-borne diseases including malaria and dengue fever, but the use of varied evaluation methods has resulted in a lack of clarity regarding their protective efficacy (PE) against contact with mosquitoes. This systematic review and meta-analysis consolidates the entomological evidence base on the PE of VPSRs against Anopheles, Aedes, and Culex mosquitoes and different test methods used.
methodsWe identified studies completed between January 2000 and September 2023 by searching through databases, conference abstracts, and personal correspondences. Included studies were semi-field or field studies that measured the PE of VPSRs using human landing catch (HLC) of mosquito landings on human legs and/or mosquito trap density, the number of mosquitoes captured using traps per set time period, compared to control groups. The systematic review summarised study-level data using a generalised linear mixed model with random effects. The meta-analysis pooled individual mosquito-level data and weather data on temperature, humidity, and wind from satellites, analysing PE subgrouped by product format, active ingredient, mosquito capture method used, mosquito species, and indoor vs outdoor setting. Risk of bias was assessed using a SYRCLE tool adapted for mosquito studies. Additional studies published from October 2023 to July 2025 were summarised. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021268852.
findings58 eligible publications showed that VPSRs provided an average of 56% (95% CI 50, 62%) PE from mosquito bites. Meta-analysis of individual mosquito-level data from 50 (86%) of eligible studies involving 1,703,120 mosquitoes showed that PE was highest when measured using HLC, with similar results seen in semi-field (58%, 95% CI 54, 62%) and field studies (50%, 95% CI 40, 59%). Differences between indoor (54%, 95% CI 18, 68%) and outdoor settings (56%, 95% CI 51, 60%) were unclear. Species-level differences were observed with low PE seen in Anopheles funestus (31%, 95% CI 19, 43%); the potential for cross-resistance to solid-state pyrethroids is unclear. Efficacy was not sensitive to combined weather effects.
interpretationVPSRs offer protection from contact with mosquitoes, with semi-field studies reflecting field data and species-level differences observed. HLC provided the best quality data. Additional field studies that evaluate outdoor protection in malaria-endemic settings are needed, especially in West African, South American, and Southeast Asian settings.
fundingNational Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (K01AI156182)) and "Accelerate to Eliminate Malaria" program.
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.