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.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Standardizing operational vector sampling techniques for measuring malaria transmission intensity: evaluation of six mosquito collection methods in western Kenya
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2875-12-143 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jacklyn Wong, Nabie Bayoh, George Olang, Gerry F Killeen, Mary J Hamel, John M Vulule, John E Gimnig |
| Abstract |
Operational vector sampling methods lack standardization, making quantitative comparisons of malaria transmission across different settings difficult. Human landing catch (HLC) is considered the research gold standard for measuring human-mosquito contact, but is unsuitable for large-scale sampling. This study assessed mosquito catch rates of CDC light trap (CDC-LT), Ifakara tent trap (ITT), window exit trap (WET), pot resting trap (PRT), and box resting trap (BRT) relative to HLC in western Kenya to 1) identify appropriate methods for operational sampling in this region, and 2) contribute to a larger, overarching project comparing standardized evaluations of vector trapping methods across multiple countries. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 175 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 60 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 37 | 20% |