ArticleParasites & vectors2026
Field comparison of BG-Pro configurations with CDC light traps and evaluation of the BG-Counter 2 trap for automated mosquito surveillance in urban and rural Thailand.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEntomological surveillance programmes need traps that perform reliably across vector taxa and ecological settings, and automated tools that reduce labour without compromising data quality. We evaluated BG-Pro trap configurations and the BG-Counter 2 against the standard CDC light trap (CDC-LT) across contrasting urban and rural ecologies in Thailand.
methodsWe compared CDC light traps (CDC-LT) baited with CO₂, BG-Pro traps (BG-Lure + CO₂), and inverted BG-Pro traps (BG-Lure + CO₂) using a 3 × 3 Latin square design over 270 trap-days across two urban sites (Bangkok and Nakhon Pathom; Nov 2024-Mar 2025) and one rural malaria-endemic site (Tha Song Yang, Tak; Jul - Oct 2024). Trap performance was analysed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). The BG-Counter 2 accuracy was assessed over 60 trap-days by comparing automated with manual counts.
resultsA total of 54,054 mosquitoes representing six genera were collected, dominated by Culex (77.6%). Across sites, BG-Pro produced the highest overall catches (urban mean 946.04; rural mean 13.29 mosquitoes/trap-day) and outperformed CDC-LT in both urban (IRR = 6.11) and rural (IRR = 2.64) settings, while the inverted BG-Pro traps captured the fewest mosquitoes. Genus-specific patterns were consistent across ecological settings: BG-Pro achieved the highest mean capture rates for Aedes (urban 8.3; rural 1.4 mosquitoes/trap-day) and Culex (urban 936.3; rural 8.3 mosquitoes/trap-day), indicating stronger performance for culicines relative to CDC-LT. In the rural site, overall captures of Anopheles minimus were very low across all traps, while CDC-LT sampled a broader range of anopheline taxa. The BG-Counter 2 median accuracy was high in urban sites (89.0%) but low in the rural site (20.6%), with the sensor overcounting mosquitoes on the majority of trap-days in both settings.
conclusionsNo single trap optimally samples all vector groups across ecological settings. BG-Pro (BG-Lure + CO₂) showed promising utility for operational culicine surveillance in urban Thailand, whereas CDC-LT remains preferable for anopheline monitoring in rural malaria-risk settings. The BG-Counter 2 can support near-real-time trend monitoring in low-background urban environments but requires site-specific calibration before rural deployment. These findings support a context-specific surveillance strategy that combines complementary traps rather than relying on a single platform.
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.