ArticleChina CDC weekly2026
Field Efficacy of Seven Nighttime Ultra-Low-Volume Spraying Strategies Against
Article in China CDC weekly, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Daytime adult mosquito control in urban parks may disrupt public activities and constrain equipment movement. We evaluated whether nighttime ultra-low-volume (ULV) operations could reduce adult Methods: Descriptive field comparisons were conducted at three urban green-space sites in Shenzhen, China. Seven strategies were evaluated: ground ULV-only, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-only, light- or wind-disturbance-assisted UAV, dual-insecticide UAV, and two coordinated ground-air regimens. Adult host-seeking activity was measured using protected human-bait collection, a modified human landing catch (HLC) procedure with full protective clothing and no skin exposure. Henderson-Tilton control-adjusted efficacy was the primary comparison, and direct reduction was used as a supporting measure. Results: In the control-adjusted analysis, wind disturbance plus UAV spraying yielded the highest observed Day 1 efficacy, 91.7% (11/12). Ground-air coordinated dual-regimen ULV spraying yielded the highest observed overall efficacy, 75.9% (2,339/3,080). Dual-insecticide UAV spraying yielded efficacies of 77.8% (7/9) on Day 1 and 67.9% (112/165) overall. Ground-air coordinated same-regimen ULV spraying showed moderate control-adjusted efficacy, whereas ground ULV-only spraying produced negative estimates under the evaluated field conditions. Conclusion: Under heterogeneous field conditions, wind disturbance plus UAV spraying had the highest observed Day 1 adjusted efficacy, whereas ground-air coordinated dual-regimen ULV spraying had the highest observed overall adjusted efficacy. Site, period, and baseline differences limit causal comparisons among strategies.
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.