ArticleJournal of medical entomology2026
Assessing the performance of bloodfed mosquito collection strategies in Australia.
Article in Journal of medical entomology, 2026. 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.
- Oil palm expansion reshapes Culicoides assemblages and avian haemosporidian infections.Parasites & vectors · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bloodfed mosquitoes provide direct evidence of host use, a critical factor for understanding and managing mosquito-borne diseases, yet they are difficult to collect. This study assessed 6 bloodfed mosquito collection methods: direct aspiration, 2 commercially available surveillance traps, and 3 types of artificial resting shelters (ARS) at commercial piggeries and in nearby wetlands within Australia. Methods were evaluated for collection success (ability to capture bloodfed mosquitoes in field conditions) and efficiency (bloodfed mosquitoes collected per minute of effort), while also evaluating the influence of temperature, precipitation, and water index on trapping outcomes using a generalized linear mixed model. Of the 2,530 bloodfed mosquitoes collected, aspiration achieved the highest overall success, largely due to 2 exceptionally productive sites. Two ARS (large bins and felt bags), however, performed more consistently across locations and were particularly efficient in locations with fewer bloodfed mosquitoes. Collection method strongly influenced species composition: aspiration and ground-level ARS collected primarily Culex annulirostris Skuse (Diptera: Culicidae), whereas felt-bag ARS suspended from trees captured proportionally more Anopheles annulipes Walker (Diptera: Culicidae). Aspiration and ARS were most effective near dense, humid ground vegetation: habitats that concentrate resting mosquitoes. These findings suggest a 2-step approach to optimize collection outcomes. First, identify natural resting locations, then match the collection to local abundance and target species: aspiration for ground vegetation with abundant Culex species, ARS (especially felt bags) for low-abundance or arboreal-resting species. This framework supports more targeted and efficient surveillance of mosquito feeding patterns.
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.