ArticlePloS one2025
Efficacy of a volatile pyrethroid spatial emanator (SE) in reducing Anopheles host-seeking in outdoor kitchens in Southern Zambia.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn southern Zambia, malaria transmission is low, with outdoor biting Anopheles mosquitoes playing a significant role in malaria transmission. Locals cook in outdoor, open-walled kitchen shelters, exposing them to these outdoor biting vectors and malaria. Volatile pyrethroid spatial emanators (SE) operate through a mode of action which could provide local protection around these kitchens. In this study, SE devices containing the pyrethroid transfluthrin were deployed to local kitchens, where human landing collection (HLC) was utilized to determine differences in host-landing rates associated with protection. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-one households from two villages were enrolled in the study in clusters of five (or six) and randomly assigned a treatment by cluster. Local mosquito collectors were recruited and trained to conduct HLCs from 18:00-06:00 once per week for 15 weeks. SE and placebo devices were replaced monthly. Following collection, mosquitoes were returned to the lab for morphological identification. Results were analyzed in R with negative binomial generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) considering all-night and per-hour capture.
resultsA total of 3021 mosquitoes were collected during the follow-up period, with Anopheles species composing roughly half of all specimens. Anopheles activity was lower in SE protected kitchens based on all night and hourly comparisons. Mosquito activity was highest in the middle of the night, and SE was not significantly associated with protection between 18:00-21:00. SE usage appeared to reduce mosquito host-seeking activity by approximately 65-70%, with this efficacy appearing to diminish gradually over time to approximately 20-25% four weeks after opening, at which point they were replaced. Culicine mosquito behavior was not significantly impacted by the SE. DISCUSSION: The SE device provided protection to individuals within protected kitchen structures overnight and during most hours of the night. The number of mosquitoes was lowest during the early collection hours between 18:00-21:00, a period in which the SE devices did not significantly impact mosquito host-seeking behavior. This result has implications for this use-case and should be further explored.
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.