↓ Skip to main content

Experimental hut evaluation of a novel long-lasting non-pyrethroid durable wall lining for control of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Experimental hut evaluation of a novel long-lasting non-pyrethroid durable wall lining for control of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus in Tanzania
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1710-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Malima, Basiliana Emidi, Louisa A. Messenger, Richard M. Oxborough, Bernard Batengana, Wema Sudi, Sophie Weston, George Mtove, Joseph P. Mugasa, Franklin W. Mosha, Mark W. Rowland, William Kisinza

Abstract

A novel, insecticide-treated, durable wall lining (ITWL), which mimics indoor residual spraying (IRS), has been developed to provide prolonged vector control when fixed to the inner walls of houses. PermaNet(®) ITWL is a polypropylene material containing non-pyrethroids (abamectin and fenpyroximate) which migrate gradually to the surface. An experimental hut trial was conducted in an area of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l. and Anopheles funestus s.s. to compare the efficacy of non-pyrethroid ITWL, long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLIN) (Interceptor(®)), pyrethroid ITWL (ZeroVector(®)), and non-pyrethroid ITWL + LLIN. The non-pyrethroid ITWL produced relatively low levels of mortality, between 40-50% for An. funestus and An. gambiae, across all treatments. Against An. funestus, the non-pyrethroid ITWL when used without LLIN produced 47% mortality but this level of mortality was not significantly different to that of the LLIN alone (29%, P = 0.306) or ITWL + LLIN (35%, P = 0.385). Mortality levels for An. gambiae were similar to An. funestus with non-pyrethroid ITWL, producing 43% mortality compared with 26% for the LLIN. Exiting rates from ITWL huts were similar to the control and highest when the LLIN was present. An attempt to restrict mosquito access by covering the eave gap with ITWL (one eave open vs four open) had no effect on numbers entering. The LLIN provided personal protection when added to the ITWL with only 30% blood-fed compared with 69 and 56% (P = 0.001) for ITWL alone. Cone bioassays on ITWL with 30 min exposure after the trial produced mortality of >90% using field An. gambiae. Despite high mortality in bioassays, the hut trial produced only limited mortality which was attributed to pyrethroid resistance against the pyrethroid ITWL and low efficacy in the non-pyrethroid ITWL. Hut ceilings were left uncovered and may have served as a potential untreated refuge. By analogy to IRS campaigns, which also do not routinely treat ceilings, high community coverage with ITWL may still reduce malaria transmission. Restriction of eave gaps by 75% proved an inadequate barrier to mosquito entry. The findings represent the first 2 months after installation and do not necessarily predict long-term efficacy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 21%
Student > Master 16 20%
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 26 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#12,935,062
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,005
of 5,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,296
of 310,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#61
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,657 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 310,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.