↓ Skip to main content

Which intervention is better for malaria vector control: insecticide mixture long-lasting insecticidal nets or standard pyrethroid nets combined with indoor residual spraying?

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 3,855)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
27 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Which intervention is better for malaria vector control: insecticide mixture long-lasting insecticidal nets or standard pyrethroid nets combined with indoor residual spraying?
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1987-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corine Ngufor, Josias Fagbohoun, Jessica Critchley, Raphael N’Guessan, Damien Todjinou, David Malone, Martin Akogbeto, Mark Rowland

Abstract

Malaria control today is threatened by widespread insecticide resistance in vector populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of a mixture of unrelated insecticides for indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LNs) or as a combination of interventions for improved vector control and insecticide resistance management. Studies investigating the efficacy of these different strategies are necessary. The efficacy of Interceptor(®) G2 LN, a newly developed LN treated with a mixture of chlorfenapyr (a pyrrole) and alpha-cypermethrin (a pyrethroid), was compared to a combined chlorfenapyr IRS and Interceptor(®) LN (a standard alpha-cypermethrin LN) intervention in experimental huts in Cove Southern Benin, against wild, free-flying, pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l. A direct comparison was also made with a pyrethroid-only net (Interceptor(®) LN) alone and chorfenapyr IRS alone. WHO resistance bioassays performed during the trial demonstrated a pyrethroid resistance frequency of >90% in the wild An. gambiae s.l. from the Cove hut site. Mortality in the control (untreated net) hut was 5%. Mortality with Interceptor(®) LN (24%) was lower than with chlorfenapyr IRS alone (59%, P < 0.001). The combined Interceptor(®) LN and chlorfenapyr IRS intervention and the mixture net (Interceptor(®) G2 LN) provided significantly higher mortality rates (73 and 76%, respectively) and these did not differ significantly between both treatments (P = 0.15). Interceptor LN induced 46% blood-feeding inhibition compared to the control untreated net, while chlorfenapyr IRS alone provided none. Both mixture/combination strategies also induced substantial levels of blood-feeding inhibition (38% with combined interventions and 30% with Interceptor(®) G2 LN). A similar trend of improved mortality of pyrethroid-resistant An. gambiae s.l. from Cove was observed with Interceptor(®) G2 LN (79%) compared to Interceptor LN (42%, P < 0.001) in WHO tunnel tests. The use of chlorfenapyr and alpha-cypermethrin together as a mixture on nets (Interceptor(®) G2 LN) or a combined chlorfenapyr IRS and pyrethroid LN intervention provides improved control of pyrethroid-resistant malaria vectors by inducing significantly higher levels of mortality through the chlorfenapyr component and providing personal protection through the pyrethroid component. Both strategies are comparable in their potential to improve the control of malaria transmitted by pyrethroid resistant mosquito vectors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Unspecified 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 11%
Unspecified 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 9 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 07 January 2019.
All research outputs
#387,778
of 13,187,018 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#43
of 3,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,972
of 268,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,187,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 268,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them