↓ Skip to main content

An improved mosquito electrocuting trap that safely reproduces epidemiologically relevant metrics of mosquito human-feeding behaviours as determined by human landing catch

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An improved mosquito electrocuting trap that safely reproduces epidemiologically relevant metrics of mosquito human-feeding behaviours as determined by human landing catch
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1513-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicodem J. Govella, Deodatus F. Maliti, Amos T. Mlwale, John P. Masallu, Nosrat Mirzai, Paul C. D. Johnson, Heather M. Ferguson, Gerry F. Killeen

Abstract

Reliable quantification of mosquito host-seeking behaviours is required to determine the efficacy of vector control methods. For malaria, the gold standard approach remains the risky human landing catch (HLC). Here compare the performance of an improved prototype of the mosquito electrocuting grid trap (MET) as a safer alternative with HLC for measuring malaria vector behaviour in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Mosquito trapping was conducted at three sites within Dar es Salaam representing a range of urbanicity over a 7-month period (December 2012-July 2013, 168 sampling nights). At each site, sampling was conducted in a block of four houses, with two houses being allocated to HLC and the other to MET on each night of study. Sampling was conducted both indoors and outdoors (from 19:00 to 06:00 each night) at all houses, with trapping method (HLC and MET) being exchanged between pairs of houses at each site using a crossover design. The MET caught significantly more Anopheles gambiae sensu lato than the HLC, both indoors (RR [95 % confidence interval (CI)]) = 1.47 [1.23-1.76], P < 0.0001 and outdoors = 1.38 [1.14-1.67], P < 0.0001). The sensitivity of MET compared with HLC did not detectably change over the course of night for either An. gambiae s.l. (OR [CI]) = 1.01 [0.94-1.02], P = 0.27) or Culex spp. (OR [CI]) = 0.99 [0.99-1.0], P = 0.17) indoors and declined only slightly outdoors: An. gambiae s.l. (OR [CI]) = 0.92 [0.86-0.99], P = 0.04), and Culex spp. (OR [CI]) = 0.99 [0.98-0.99], P = 0.03). MET-based estimates of the proportions of mosquitoes caught indoors (P i ) or during sleeping hours (P fl ), as well as the proportion of human exposure to bites that would otherwise occurs indoors (π i ), were statistically indistinguishable from those based on HLC for An. gambiae s.l. (P = 0.43, 0.07 and 0.48, respectively) and Culex spp. (P = 0.76, 0.24 and 0.55, respectively). This improved MET prototype is highly sensitive tool that accurately quantifies epidemiologically-relevant metrics of mosquito biting densities, behaviours and human exposure distribution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Madagascar 1 <1%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 25%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Environmental Science 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 31 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2018.
All research outputs
#5,172,220
of 25,306,238 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,211
of 5,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,660
of 330,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#26
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,306,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.