↓ Skip to main content

Development and evaluation of mosquito-electrocuting traps as alternatives to the human landing catch technique for sampling host-seeking malaria vectors

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Development and evaluation of mosquito-electrocuting traps as alternatives to the human landing catch technique for sampling host-seeking malaria vectors
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-1025-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deodatus V. Maliti, Nicodem J. Govella, Gerry F. Killeen, Nosrat Mirzai, Paul C. D. Johnson, Katharina Kreppel, Heather M. Ferguson

Abstract

The human landing catch (HLC) is the gold standard method for sampling host-seeking malaria vectors. However, the HLC is ethically questionable because it requires exposure of humans to potentially infectious mosquito bites. Two exposure-free methods for sampling host-seeking mosquitoes were evaluated using electrocuting surfaces as potential replacements for HLC: (1) a previously evaluated, commercially available electrocuting grid (CA-EG) designed for killing flies, and (2) a custom-made mosquito electrocuting trap (MET) designed to kill African malaria vectors. The MET and the CA-EG were evaluated relative to the HLC in a Latin Square experiment conducted in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. The sampling consistency of the traps across the night and at varying mosquito densities was investigated. Estimates of the proportion of mosquitoes caught indoors (Pi), proportion of human exposure occurring indoors (πi), and proportion of mosquitoes caught when most people are likely to be indoors (Pfl) were compared for all traps. Whereas the CA-EG performed poorly (<10 % of catch of HLC), sampling efficiency of the MET for sampling Anopheles funestus s.l. was indistinguishable from HLC indoors and outdoors. For Anopheles gambiae s.l., sampling sensitivity of MET was 20.9 % (95 % CI 10.3-42.2) indoors and 58.5 % (95 % CI 32.2-106.2) outdoors relative to HLC. There was no evidence of density-dependent sampling by the MET or CA-EG. Similar estimates of Pi were obtained for An. gambiae s.l. and An. funestus s.l. from all trapping methods. The proportion of mosquitoes caught when people are usually indoors (Pfl) was underestimated by the CA-EG and MET for An. gambiae s.l., but similar to the HLC for An. funestus. Estimates of the proportion of human exposure occurring indoors (πi) obtained from the CA-EG and MET were similar to the HLC for An. gambiae s.l., but overestimated for An. funestus. The MET showed promise as an outdoor sampling tool for malaria vectors where it achieved >50 % sampling sensitivity relative to the HLC. The CA-EG had poor sampling sensitivity outdoors and inside. With further modification, the MET could provide an efficient and safer alternative to the HLC for the surveillance of mosquito vectors outdoors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 79 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 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 32%
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 39%
Environmental Science 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 11 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 28 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,083,289
of 17,094,905 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#201
of 4,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,356
of 374,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#20
of 451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,094,905 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 374,659 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 451 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.