ArticleParasites & vectors2025
Improvement to East African style experimental huts allows for more effective evaluation of vector control products for protection against vector-borne diseases.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEast African style experimental huts have been used in Tanzania since 1963 to evaluate vector control interventions such as insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying. Over time, these huts have been modified to include eave baffles to minimise mosquito escape. In this study, we evaluated the impact of increasing baffle size and using netting to funnel mosquito entry into the room and prevent escape. We also explored mosquito entry behaviour using a sticky trap positioned on the hut exterior to determine if this behaviour could be leveraged for vector control.
methodsThis study was conducted in Moshi, Tanzania and included two trials. In trial one, we compared the original huts with baffles with small exit holes (4 × 110 cm at the wide end nearest the eave gap and 2 × 2 cm at the narrow funnel end) to those with a larger size of baffle exit hole (20 × 120 cm at the wide end and 4 × 10 cm at the narrow end). In trial two, we compared huts with a sticky trap on the exterior wall to those without. Data analyses used logistic regression models to compare mosquito entry, blood-feeding rates and exophily, adjusting for variation between huts, cows (for blood-feeding) and days of the trial.
resultsLarger eave baffles significantly increased entry of Anopheles gambiae Kisumu mosquitoes into huts [p = 0.01, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-3.8]. Blood-feeding rates were also significantly higher in huts with the larger baffle size compared to those with the original baffle size [p = 0.001, AOR 16.9 95% CI 4.9-59.0]. In trial two, 16% (95 CI 13.3-19.6) of An. gambiae Kisumu and 8% (95 CI: 6.3-10.5) of Anopheles arabiensis populations were collected on the sticky traps, significantly reducing mosquito entry into huts. With the presence of sticky traps, blood-feeding was inhibited by 12.7% for An. arabiensis and 32.6% for An. gambiae Kisumu.
conclusionsThe results of this study support the use of larger baffle sizes in East African huts to capture larger numbers of mosquitoes and improve the evaluation of vector control tools. Although only a small proportion of mosquitoes were found to have had direct contact with the exterior of the hut before entry, the presence of sticky traps still reduced blood-feeding rates by limiting the entry of host-seeking mosquitoes.
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.