Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41350710›Full record

ReviewMalaria journal2025

Outdoor biting by malaria vectors: what are the options for intervention?

Leo Braack, Michael B Macdonald

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Malaria journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Leo BraackFaculty of Tropical Medicine, Malaria Consortium, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. l.braack@malariaconsortium.org.
Michael B MacdonaldAsia-Pacific Malaria Elimination Network (APMEN), Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA significant portion of malaria transmission occurs outdoors, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Current capacity to control such outdoor biting and resting mosquitoes is inadequate, and an expanded range of tools to deploy in outdoor situations is required. This paper explores the range of options available, their current status and potential for effective implementation.

methodsA literature review of the status of classes of interventions to reduce outdoor biting was conducted, including: attractive targeted sugar baits, endectocides, outdoor residual spraying, fogging, mass trapping, genetic modification techniques (3 categories), larval source management, repellents (4 categories), raised platforms, and zooprophylaxy. While not product class-specific, social engagement and behaviour change, and the more encompassing integrated vector management framework are also described as enabling strategies. The product-specific interventions were chosen if they were the subject of multiple peer-reviewed papers, and have some evidence of effectiveness. The status and potential for effective implementation are provided for each.

resultsThere are many vector control interventions that contribute to control populations of outdoor biting mosquitoes or lead to a reduction of transmission potential. Larval Source Management is effective in some contexts but not others, and has WHO endorsement as a Supplemental Method for vector control. Spatial emanators/repellents have recently received WHO recommendation for indoor application, but may also be effective in the peridomestic space and temporary shelters. Topical repellents are effective for short-term exposure but less for long-term community protection. Endectocides offer potential in focal locations, especially as they bring benefits in helminth control for domestic animals and has good community acceptance, Gene drive holds the possibility for incisive vector control but remains a longer-term vision.

conclusionThere is no universally applicable tool to prevent outdoor transmission. Each has its own utility, depending on local context. The best approach is integrating complementary techniques and community engagement to provide a broad shield of response against outdoor biting mosquitoes. As the WHO Integrated Vector Management framework recommends, it is through a broad approach of combined interventions, along with community engagement, improved data for decision-making, cross-sectoral collaboration and capacity building that can more effectively address outdoor biting of malaria vectors.

Indexed as

AnophelesInsect Bites and StingsMalariaMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsAnimalsHumansIntegrated Vector ManagementMalaria vectorsOutdoor bitingVector control

Identifiers

PMID41350710
PMCPMC12784499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.