ArticlePloS one2026
The role of citizen science in mosquito-borne disease surveillance and control: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMosquito-borne diseases (MBDs) pose substantial global health and economic burdens. Although conventional MBDs surveillance systems remain essential, they are often resource-intensive, uneven in coverage, and often insufficiently responsive to spatio-temporal variations in mosquito presence and risk. Citizen science, increasingly enabled by mobile and digital technologies, offers a scalable complement to expand surveillance reach and timeliness. However, existing reviews have not comprehensively integrated evidence across diverse dimensions of citizen science applied to MBDs surveillance and control.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000, to October 17, 2025, to identify peer-reviewed studies examining citizen science applications in MBDs surveillance and control. Data were extracted and synthesized on study characteristics, participation objectives, recruitment strategies, citizen-generated data and technologies, validation mechanisms, effort-bias handling, analytical approaches, public health outputs, reported biases and methodological limitations, and ethical and governance practices.
resultsOf 3,734 records identified, 61 studies met inclusion criteria, with most published after 2017 (93.4%). Studies were conducted in Europe (44.3%) and the Americas (21.3%), with minimal representation from Asia (3.3%). Malaria-related surveillance was most common (23.0%), followed by dengue (13.1%), with other mosquito-borne diseases examined only sporadically, including West Nile virus (4.9%), Usutu virus (1.6%), La Crosse virus (1.6%), and California serogroup viruses (1.6%). Most studies were conducted in urban settings (47.5%), followed by mixed urban-rural contexts (36.1%), with relatively few exclusively in rural areas (18.0%). Mosquito Alert was the most frequently reported platform (23.0%), followed by GLOBE Observer (13.1%) and iNaturalist (11.5%). Commonly reported outputs included trend analyses (52.5%), risk-factor identification (44.3%), spatial predictions (42.6%), hotspot mapping (19.7%), and risk modeling (16.4%). Reporting of ethical and governance practices was inconsistent across studies.
conclusionsThe growing body of evidence indicates that citizen science can enhance mosquito surveillance, particularly for monitoring invasive species and spatio-temporal trends. Nevertheless, gaps in methodological rigor, representativeness, and ethical transparency limit its broader operational use.
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.