Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41462318›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2025

Insecticide-treated screening of windows for household protection against insecticide-resistant Anopheles gambiae sensu lato in Côte d'Ivoire: a semi-field trial.

Marius Gonse Zoh, Antoine Barreaux, Edouard Dangbenon, Alphonsine Amanan Koffi, Ludovic Phamien Ahoua Alou, Soromane Camara, N'Guessan Brou, Serge Yao Koffi, Matthew Brian Thomas, Raphael N'Guessan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 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

10 authors.

Marius Gonse ZohCentre d'Entomologie Médicale et Vétérinaire, Université Alassane Ouattara (CEMV-UAO), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire. Marius_zoh@yahoo.com.
Antoine BarreauxCirad, UMR INTERTRYP, Nairobi, Kenya.
Edouard DangbenonVector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire.
Alphonsine Amanan KoffiVector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire.
Ludovic Phamien Ahoua AlouVector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire.
Soromane CamaraVector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire.
N'Guessan BrouVector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire.
Serge Yao KoffiVector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire.
Matthew Brian ThomasDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Raphael N'GuessanVector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the significant impact of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) on malaria, 597,000 deaths from malaria were still recorded in 2023. Additional measures are clearly needed to complement current tools. We assessed the efficacy of insecticide-treated window screens (a piece of PermaNet 3.0 containing deltamethrin + piperonyl butoxide) versus untreated window screening and eave tube inserts treated with β-cyfluthrin as household interventions against Anopheles gambiae sensu lato.

methodBetween August and October 2022, five experimental houses in Kolongonouan village, central Côte d'Ivoire, were used under semi-field conditions to evaluate the following interventions: (i) standard control house with small openings in the eaves and no window screens (SCH); (ii) insecticide-treated screening (ITS) of windows with small openings in the eaves (ITS op); (iii) ITS of windows with eaves blocked to prevent mosquito entry via eaves (ITS blq); (iv) insecticide treatment applied to the eaves using In2Care eave tubes, without window screening (ET); and (v) untreated window screening together with insecticide-treated eave tubes (SET). The efficacy of these treatments on the indoor and outdoor density of naturally recruiting Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes was assessed by human landing catches from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am. The impact of these treatments on mosquito mortality and blood-feeding rates was further assessed using release-recapture experiments, in which large enclosures were built around individual houses and approximately 100 non-blood-fed female An. gambiae were released each night over 15 nights. In addition, for the ITS blq treatment, the importance of physical integrity was assessed by evaluating the effect of damaging the screening with two or four 4 cm × 4 cm holes in each screened window.

resultsInsecticide-treated window screening plus eave blocking (ITS blq) significantly reduced by 31.8% the number of An. gambiae entering houses overnight relative to standard control houses (SCH) (P < 0.001). The use of untreated screening + eave tubes (SET) induced a similar reduction (27.0%, P < 0.001). The house entry reduction magnitude for eave tubes alone (ET) was lower (23.5%), though it remained significant relative to the control (P < 0.001). The impact of the ITS op (insecticide-treated window screening with open eaves) was lower and nonsignificant (18.1%; P = 0.4019). There were no significant differences in house entry rates between ET, ITS blq, and ITS op (P > 0.05). The peak in mosquito abundance within houses occurred between 11:00 pm and 3:00 am. There were no significant differences between treatments in the numbers of mosquitoes collected outdoors. In the release-recapture experiments, all treatments significantly reduced the blood-feeding rate and increased the mortality of An. gambiae, with again a similar impact for ITS blq and SET. Damaging the ITS with two holes still led to a significant reduction in blood-feeding rate, but protection was lost with four holes. Mortality rate also declined with increasing levels of damage, although it remained significantly higher than that with the untreated window screening.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the combination (insecticide-treated window screening and blocking of eave access) reduced mosquito entry, increased mortality, and lowered blood-feeding rates of An. gambiae to levels comparable to insecticide-treated eave tubes combined with untreated window screening (SET). A previous cluster randomized controlled trial of SET in this area demonstrated a significant reduction in malaria incidence and prevalence. Insecticide-treated window screens could therefore yield a similar epidemiological impact while potentially being simpler and less expensive to implement. Larger-scale epidemiological trials involving communities are needed to test this assumption and further optimize the approach.

Indexed as

AnophelesInsecticide ResistanceInsecticidesMalariaMosquito ControlAnimalsCote d'IvoireFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHousingHumansInsecticide-Treated BednetsMosquito VectorsNitrilesPiperonyl ButoxidePyrethrinscyfluthrindecamethrinInsecticidesNitrilesPiperonyl ButoxidePyrethrinsAnopheles gambiaeHouse modificationMalariaScreeningVector control

Identifiers

PMID41462318
PMCPMC12859916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.