ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating experimental design to sample mosquitoes.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mosquito study is crucial for public health, research, and vector control. We evaluated four understudied aspects of experimental design: (i) global efficiency of trapping devices-BG-Sentinel (BG) vs. CDC light traps (LT), (ii) temporal efficiency over a three-day sampling period, (iii) the impact of sampling duration on vector presence and abundance assessments, and (iv) site visit frequency for biodiversity surveys. Both traps were deployed across 10 Cambodian provinces, with collections conducted every 24 h over three-day periods from 2019 to 2021. A total of 1992 collections yielded 181,798 mosquitoes spanning 153 identified species. Using a hurdle generalized linear mixed model to address overdispersion and zero inflation, we found that 21 of 54 studied species showed a preference for one of the trapping device: LT captured 15 species more efficiently, while six species preferred BG. Anthropophilic vectors such as Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus were more attracted to BG, whereas LT captured higher species richness and zoophilic vectors. For six of 13 primary vector species, we showed that the capture efficiency declines from day one to day three on a three days sampling period. However, annual trends in presence and abundance remained consistent regardless of whether sampling lasted one, two, or three days. Finally, we quantified the probability of collecting a new species during subsequent visits, showing that this probability declines with visit sampling effort at rates dependent on trap type and sampling days duration. These findings provide empirical guidelines for optimizing mosquito surveillance strategies based on study objectives.
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.