↓ Skip to main content

Vector and reservoir control for preventing leishmaniasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
Vector and reservoir control for preventing leishmaniasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008736.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Urbà González, Mariona Pinart, David Sinclair, Alireza Firooz, Claes Enk, Ivan D Vélez, Tonya M Esterhuizen, Mario Tristan, Jorge Alvar

Abstract

Leishmaniasis is caused by the Leishmania parasite, and transmitted by infected phlebotomine sandflies. Of the two distinct clinical syndromes, cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) affects the skin and mucous membranes, and visceral leishmaniasis (VL) affects internal organs. Approaches to prevent transmission include vector control by reducing human contact with infected sandflies, and reservoir control, by reducing the number of infected animals. To assess the effects of vector and reservoir control interventions for cutaneous and for visceral leishmaniasis. We searched the following databases to 13 January 2015: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and WHOLIS, Web of Science, and RePORTER. We also searched trials registers for ongoing trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of vector and reservoir control interventions in leishmaniasis-endemic regions. Two review authors independently searched for trials and extracted data from included RCTs. We resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 14 RCTs that evaluated a range of interventions across different settings. The study methods were generally poorly described, and consequently all included trials were judged to be at high or unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. Only seven trials reported clinical outcome data which limits our ability to make broad generalizations to different epidemiological settings and cultures. Cutaneous leishmaniasisOne four-arm RCT from Afghanistan compared indoor residual spraying (IRS), insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs), and insecticide-treated bedsheets, with no intervention. Over 15 months follow-up, all three insecticide-based interventions had a lower incidence of CL than the control area (IRS: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.97, 2892 participants, moderate quality evidence; ITNs: RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.56, 2954 participants, low quality evidence; ITS: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.57, 2784 participants, low quality evidence). No difference was detected between the three interventions (low quality evidence). One additional trial of ITNs from Iran was underpowered to show a difference.Insecticide treated curtains were compared with no intervention in one RCT from Venezuela, where there were no CL episodes in the intervention areas over 12 months follow-up compared to 142 in control areas (RR 0.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.49, one trial, 2938 participants, low quality evidence).Personal protection using insecticide treated clothing was evaluated by two RCTs in soldiers, but the trials were underpowered to reliably detect effects on the incidence of CL (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.20, two trials, 558 participants, low quality evidence). Visceral leishmaniasisIn a single RCT of ITNs versus no intervention from India and Nepal, the incidence of VL was low in both groups and no difference was detected (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.15, one trial, 19,810 participants, moderate quality evidence).Two trials from Brazil evaluated the effects of culling infected dogs compared to no intervention or IRS. Although they report a reduction in seroconversion over 18 months follow-up, they did not measure or report effects on clinical disease. Using insecticides to reduce phlebotomine sandfly numbers may be effective at reducing the incidence of CL, but there is insufficient evidence from trials to know whether it is better to spray the internal walls of houses or to treat bednets, curtains, bedsheets or clothing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
India 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Unknown 170 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 18%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Unspecified 17 9%
Other 49 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 31%
Unspecified 31 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 7%
Other 35 20%

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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,282,161
of 13,237,907 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,055
of 10,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,608
of 233,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,237,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 233,851 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.