ArticleParasites & vectors2026
A comparative assessment of mosquito trapping methods for vector surveillance in Scotland.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile mosquito vector-borne disease (VBD) risk remains low in Northern Europe, surveillance is needed to monitor potential vector species. However, most mosquito trapping methods have been evaluated only in areas of high mosquito density, with limited knowledge of their sensitivity in low-abundance areas. Here, we assessed the relative performance of four commercially available traps in an urban setting in Scotland, where mosquito density is low.
methodsTwo trap evaluation experiments were conducted in an urban marsh in Glasgow City during August 2023. In experiment 1, the Biogents BG-Pro (BGP), Biogents BG-Sentinel (BGS), and CDC miniature light traps (LT) were compared over 15 days using a 3 × 3 Latin square design. A subsequent experiment incorporated the Mosquito Magnet (MM) trap to compare it with the other three traps over 12 days using a 4 × 4 Latin square design. Alongside these experiments, two CDC gravid traps (GT) were trialled across 24 days to target blood-fed and gravid mosquitoes. Mosquitoes were morphologically identified to species and species-group level, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays were used to identify Culex pipiens s.l. biotypes.
resultsOver the 96 trapping events, 150 mosquitoes were collected from eight species. Mosquito abundance was generally low (mean abundance: 1.61 per day ± 1.89). The most abundant species collected was Anopheles claviger (n = 63), followed by Culiseta morsitans (n = 28). In Experiment 1, there was no significant difference in mean mosquito abundance among the BGS, BGP, and the LT. In Experiment 2, there was a significant positive association between the MM and daily mosquito abundance. The MM also collected more species than the other trap types (6 compared to 1-4 species). Gravid traps collected 19 mosquitoes representing three species, of which 21% were gravid or blood-fed.
conclusionsWhile the MM caught more mosquitoes than other methods, this was likely due to its more consistent and higher-volume CO
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.