↓ Skip to main content

How important is the angle of tilt in the WHO cone bioassay?

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
How important is the angle of tilt in the WHO cone bioassay?
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1303-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry F. Owusu, Pie Müller

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) cone bioassay plays an integral role in the evaluation of the efficacy of long-lasting insecticidal nets as well as insecticides used in indoor residual spraying. The test is used on a variety of treated substrates, such as pieces of bed nets, mud, cement and wood. The cone setup assumes a wide variety of angles under different settings in which it is applied. However, the guidelines provided for the performance of the assay do not specify the angle at which the test must be performed. Laboratory colonies of Anopheles gambiae Kisumu-1 and Anopheles stephensi STI were tested in the WHO cone bioassay at four different angles (0°, 45°, 60° and 90°) following the WHO guidelines against net pieces of Olyset Plus and Netprotect. The tests were repeated after 20 washes of the nets. Individual mosquitoes were also exposed at 0° and 60° and the amount of time each spent in contact with the net was recorded. Mosquitoes spent more time on the net at 60° as compared to 0° (coefficient = 45.8, 95 % CI 34.6-55.6, p < 0.001) and were more likely to die when the test was done at 45° (OR 3.3, 95 % CI 1.7-6.3, p = 0.001), 60° (OR 3.1, 95 % CI 1.7-5.9, p < 0.001) and 90° (OR 6.0, 95 % CI 1.9-18.5, p = 0.002) as compared to 0°. The angle at which the test is performed significantly affects the amount of time mosquitoes spend resting on the nets, and subsequently mortality. Angle must thus be considered as an important component in the performance of the assay and duly incorporated into the guidelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Professor 3 4%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Environmental Science 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 20 30%
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 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,799,386
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,861
of 5,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,940
of 299,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#139
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 299,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.