↓ Skip to main content

Expanding the Vector Control Toolbox for Malaria Elimination: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Overview of attention for chapter
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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.
Chapter title
Expanding the Vector Control Toolbox for Malaria Elimination: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
Published in
Advances in Parasitology, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/bs.apar.2018.01.003
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-0-12-815192-1
Authors

Yasmin A. Williams, Lucy S. Tusting, Sophia Hocini, Patricia M. Graves, Gerry F. Killeen, Immo Kleinschmidt, Fredros O. Okumu, Richard G.A. Feachem, Allison Tatarsky, Roly D. Gosling

Abstract

Additional vector control tools (VCTs) are needed to supplement insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) to achieve malaria elimination in many settings. To identify options for expanding the malaria vector control toolbox, we conducted a systematic review of the availability and quality of the evidence for 21 malaria VCTs, excluding ITNs and IRS. Six electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched from January 1, 1980 to September 28, 2015 to identify systematic reviews, Phase I-IV studies, and observational studies that measured the effect of malaria VCTs on epidemiological or entomological outcomes across any age groups in all malaria-endemic settings. Eligible studies were summarized qualitatively, with quality and risk of bias assessments undertaken where possible. Of 17,912 studies screened, 155 were eligible for inclusion and were included in a qualitative synthesis. Across the 21 VCTs, we found considerable heterogeneity in the volume and quality of evidence, with 7 VCTs currently supported by at least one Phase III community-level evaluation measuring parasitologically confirmed malaria incidence or infection prevalence (insecticide-treated clothing and blankets, insecticide-treated hammocks, insecticide-treated livestock, larval source management (LSM), mosquito-proofed housing, spatial repellents, and topical repellents). The remaining VCTs were supported by one or more Phase II (n=13) or Phase I evaluation (n=1). Overall the quality of the evidence base remains greatest for LSM and topical repellents, relative to the other VCTs evaluated, although existing evidence indicates that topical repellents are unlikely to provide effective population-level protection against malaria. Despite substantial gaps in the supporting evidence, several VCTs may be promising supplements to ITNs and IRS in appropriate settings. Strengthening operational capacity and research to implement underutilized VCTs, such as LSM and mosquito-proofed housing, using an adaptive, learning-by-doing approach, while expanding the evidence base for promising supplementary VCTs that are locally tailored, should be considered central to global malaria elimination efforts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Master 10 13%
Other 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 13%
Environmental Science 9 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 20 25%

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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#10,326,745
of 12,942,974 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Parasitology
#179
of 237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,628
of 269,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Parasitology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,942,974 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 237 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 269,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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