↓ Skip to main content

Use of a semi-field system to evaluate the efficacy of topical repellents under user conditions provides a disease exposure free technique comparable with field data

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Use of a semi-field system to evaluate the efficacy of topical repellents under user conditions provides a disease exposure free technique comparable with field data
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-13-159
Pubmed ID
Authors

Onyango Sangoro, Dickson Lweitojera, Emmanuel Simfukwe, Hassan Ngonyani, Edgar Mbeyela, Daniel Lugiko, Japhet Kihonda, Marta Maia, Sarah Moore

Abstract

Before topical repellents can be employed as interventions against arthropod bites, their efficacy must be established. Currently, laboratory or field tests, using human volunteers, are the main methods used for assessing the efficacy of topical repellents. However, laboratory tests are not representative of real life conditions under which repellents are used and field-testing potentially exposes human volunteers to disease. There is, therefore, a need to develop methods to test efficacy of repellents under real life conditions while minimizing volunteer exposure to disease.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 25%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Librarian 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Environmental Science 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 27%