Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Community deployment of metofluthrin emanators to control indoor Aedes aegypti: Efficacy results from a crossover trial in Yucatan, Mexico.
Trial report in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. 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.
- Climate change and budget cuts: Facing theMalariaWorld journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpatial emanators (SE) are innovative tools for controlling indoor Aedes aegypti due to their relatively easy use and high efficacy. Large-scale implementation challenges include community adoption, particularly ensuring proper installation and timely replacement as SE efficacy wanes. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL
findingsWe conducted a three-arm, open-label entomological cluster randomized controlled trial with a crossover design, involving 588 households, to assess the entomological effect of the community use of metofluthrin emanators. Arms were: "no treatment"; "community-led deployment" (CD), where the households were responsible for installing and replacing SE with minimal guidance; and "managed deployment" (MD), where the research team handled SE installation and replacement. Emanators were replaced every 3 weeks across four deployment cycles, followed by a crossover between the CD and MD arms. Indoor resting mosquitoes were collected using Prokopack aspirators, and human landing counts (HLCs) were conducted in a subset of 12 houses (4 by arm) at the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth SE replacement rounds. Values of each endpoint during all sampling periods were compared using generalized linear mixed effects models (GLMM), the coefficients of the best-fitting model estimated that SE intervention reduced the number of Ae. aegypti per house by 32.7% (95%CI = 16.2-46.0%) in the CD arm and 36.8% (21.1-49.3%) in the MD arm. HLCs accounted 74-94% efficacy (MD) and 35-79% (CD). The crossover analysis found no significant difference between periods and arms, demonstrating the community's ability to manage SE as effectively as research team, even without prior training. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This trial suggests that safe, portable SE are suited to deployment by householders as a rapid response to local Aedes-borne disease outbreaks even in the presence of high pyrethroid resistance in the local Aedes population. In urban areas where effective coverage and resourcing is a challenge to control campaigns, community "ownership" of SE products may enhance the impact of insecticidal interventions.
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.