Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41372313›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluating experimental design to sample mosquitoes.

Heloise Rozier, Pierre Gloaguen, François Septier, Sébastien Boyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Heloise RozierUniversité Bretagne Sud, UMR CNRS 6205, LMBA, 56000, Vannes, France. heloise.rozier@univ-ubs.fr.
Pierre GloaguenUniversité Bretagne Sud, UMR CNRS 6205, LMBA, 56000, Vannes, France.
François SeptierUniversité Bretagne Sud, UMR CNRS 6205, LMBA, 56000, Vannes, France.
Sébastien BoyerMedical and Veterinary Entomology Unit, Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, PO Box 983, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CulicidaeMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsResearch DesignAedesAnimalsBiodiversityCambodia

Identifiers

PMID41372313
PMCPMC12696000

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.