ReviewParasites & vectors2026
Portable experimental hut tents (PEHTs): a conceptual framework for improved malaria vector control decision-making with a review of fixed experimental hut sites in Africa.
Review 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInsecticide-treated nets (ITNs) remain the primary vector control method across sub-Saharan Africa to prevent malaria transmission, with 2.2 billion pyrethroid (PY) ITNs distributed since 2004. Widespread PY resistance has contributed to stalling progress in recent years; however, new ITNs containing the pyrrole, chlorfenapyr, or the synergist piperonyl butoxide can provide improved efficacy. With more vector control options but limited resources, malaria programs face complex decisions influenced by local transmission intensity, mosquito species, and dynamic insecticide resistance patterns. Decisions are often based on subnational bioassay data, which are not indicative of ITN field performance of newer non-neurotoxic insecticides.
methodsThe gold-standard entomological method for assessing ITN performance is experimental hut trials; however, hut sites are fixed in place and often not representative of high-malaria-burden contexts. This manuscript consists of two components: the first is a literature review of fixed experimental hut sites in Africa. The second describes a new conceptual framework and design of portable experimental hut tents (PEHTs).
resultsThe literature review identified 34 experimental hut sites in malaria-endemic Africa. The West-African style hut was the most widely adopted design, used in 24 sites, with most (19/34) located near rice fields for consistent vector yield. The novel PEHT design is based on West African-style huts, using large cabin-style tents equipped with a veranda and 3D-printed lightweight mosquito entry points. A major advantage of PEHTs is their portability for use within high-malaria-burden villages to evaluate community-used ITNs of varying ages against local malaria vector populations, which can support data-driven subnational vector control tailoring. Beyond the evaluation of ITNs, PEHTs can be utilized for studies of new vector control technologies, such as spatial repellent emanators, and can generate evidence for improved vector control practices during humanitarian emergencies, military deployments, and in settings with emerging vector-borne disease threats.
conclusionsThis study describes the innovative concept and design of PEHTs for expanded evaluation of vector control tools in a wider geographical range against local, heterogeneous mosquito populations.
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.