↓ Skip to main content

The behaviour of mosquitoes in relation to humans under holed bednets: the evidence from experimental huts

Overview of attention for article published in Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
The behaviour of mosquitoes in relation to humans under holed bednets: the evidence from experimental huts
Published in
Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, November 2014
DOI 10.1590/0074-0276140159
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seth R Irish

Abstract

The physical integrity of bednets is a concern of national malaria control programs, as it is a key factor in determining the rate of replacement of bednets. It is largely assumed that increased numbers of holes will result in a loss of protection of sleepers from potentially infective bites. Experimental hut studies are valuable in understanding mosquito behaviour indoors, particularly as it relates to blood feeding and mortality. This review summarises findings from experimental hut studies, focusing on two issues: (i) the effect of different numbers or sizes of holes in bednets and (ii) feeding behaviour and mortality with holed nets as compared with unholed nets. As might be expected, increasing numbers and area of holes resulted in increased blood feeding by mosquitoes on sleepers. However, the presence of holes did not generally have a large effect on the mortality of mosquitoes. Successfully entering a holed mosquito net does not necessarily mean that mosquitoes spend less time in contact with the net, which could explain the lack in differences in mortality. Further behavioural studies are necessary to understand mosquito behaviour around nets and the importance of holed nets on malaria transmission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 21%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,653,708
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz
#1,185
of 1,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,446
of 273,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,502 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 273,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.