SynthesisParasites & vectors2026
Efficacy of volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents to reduce exposure to mosquito and sand fly vectors and human infection risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVolatile pyrethroid spatial repellents (VPSRs) have emerged as promising complementary tools for vector control. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the protective efficacy (PE) of VPSRs against mosquito- and sand-fly-borne human infections, and against vector numbers in traps.
methodsClinical infection and entomological studies that evaluated VPSRs against human infection with Plasmodium, arboviruses (Dengue and Zika), and Leishmania, and against their respective vectors, were systematically reviewed. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled PE values and explored moderators including vector trapping method, deployment setting (indoor/outdoor), and active ingredient (a.i.) concentration.
resultsA total of 49 VPSR studies containing 154 datasets met the inclusion criteria, comprising 6 trials (7 datasets) against human infection incidence, and 43 entomological studies mostly of mosquitoes (147 datasets); 73.5% tested active ingredients transfluthrin and 22.4% tested metofluthrin. Pooled estimates from transfluthrin VPSR trials indicated protective effects of 50% (95% CI 21-69%) against Plasmodium (n = 3) and 34% (95% CI 10-52%) against arboviruses (Dengue and Zika, n = 1). Evidence for Leishmania infection incidence was limited to a single trial (PE = 48%, 95% CI 26-63%). Metofluthrin showed no effect against Plasmodium (n = 1). Exposure to VPSRs was associated with substantial reductions in trapped mosquito and sand fly numbers. The comparative protection inferred from the entomological data was variably dependent on trap type: the mosquito data gave pooled mean PE values of 57-62% by human landing catches; 35-55% using Centers for Disease Control light traps (CDC-LT); and 47-88% using CDC-LT co-located with sources of CO
conclusionsThe collective results demonstrate that transfluthrin-based VPSRs were associated with reduced vector numbers and reduced Plasmodium infection incidence, with likely effectiveness also against arboviral and Leishmania infection incidence. However, existing evidence for reduced infection incidence is very limited despite strong entomological effects. More studies to evidence-base and strengthen conclusions are needed on many key aspects of VPSR products for programmatic and sustainable scale-up.
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.