SynthesisJournal of medical entomology2026
Effectiveness of natural predators, microbial bioinsecticides, and plant-based bioinsecticides to reduce mosquito-borne disease burden: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical entomology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mosquito-borne diseases are a major public health burden given the limited pharmacological options. While the adverse effects of synthetic insecticides are well documented, it is necessary to assess whether environmentally friendly interventions are effective for disease control. Although natural predators, microbial bioinsecticides and plant-based bioinsecticides have gained attention for their specificity and reduced environmental impact, no comprehensive synthesis of evidence on their effectiveness in reducing disease burden has been conducted, highlighting the need for this review. A PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic searched for literature published from 2000 to 2026 in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, and CAB Abstracts. Experimental field studies evaluating these interventions against Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex, reporting epidemiological indicators of chikungunya, dengue, Zika, lymphatic filariasis, West Nile virus, Rift Valley fever, yellow fever, malaria, or Japanese encephalitis, were eligible. Due to outcome heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed instead of a meta-analysis. Eighteen studies from Asia, Africa, Central America, and South America, assessing bacterial larvicides, copepods, and larvivorous fish, were included. Only five studies performed statistical analysis to compare intervention and control groups, two of which found no significant association between the intervention and the disease outcome. The remaining sixteen reduced disease burden in intervention groups with different levels of evidence. These interventions show potential to reduce the burden of dengue, malaria, and chikungunya across diverse settings, supporting their role as promising alternative or complementary tools for disease control. Future research would benefit from more experimental designs, standardized epidemiological outcomes, and robust statistical analysis. Prospero Registration Number CRD42024628633.
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.