ArticleEpidemiology and infection2026
Optimizing the impact of a novel spatial repellent on malaria incidence in Western Kenya.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Progress in reducing global malaria incidence has slowed in recent years, demonstrating the need for new vector control tools to complement existing interventions in reaching global malaria control targets. Spatial repellents (SRs) can reduce pathogen transmission by altering the behaviors of Anopheles spp. mosquito vectors. A recent cluster-randomized control trial in western Kenya found that SRs reduced first-time infections by 33.4% in a highly-endemic setting with substantial insecticide resistance and high coverage of insecticide treated nets. We modeled the likely impact of the SR intervention in this setting under different deployment strategies, with the goal of identifying the best overall and per-product strategies. Continuous monthly SR deployment with 100% coverage caused the greatest (45.1%) reduction in infections versus no SR, although some seasonal approaches averted more infections per SR product. Six months of SR use starting in October caused a 36.4% reduction in infections and eight months starting in September reduced infections by 44.7%. This study identified optimum and efficient SR use strategies and highlights the importance of SR protection during periods of low and increasing transmission. When resources are limited, the coverage, deployment strategy, and timing of SR deployment all play a key role in maximizing product impact.
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.