↓ Skip to main content

How many holes is too many? A prototype tool for estimating mosquito entry risk into damaged bed nets

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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 many holes is too many? A prototype tool for estimating mosquito entry risk into damaged bed nets
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1951-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Sutcliffe, Xin Ji, Shaoman Yin

Abstract

Insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) have played an integral role in malaria reduction but how insecticide depletion and accumulating physical damage affect ITN performance is poorly understood. More accurate methods are needed to assess damage to bed nets so that they can be designed, deployed and replaced optimally. Video recordings of female Anopheles gambiae in near approach (1-½ cm) to occupied untreated rectangular bed nets in a laboratory study were used to quantify the amount of mosquito activity (appearances over time) around different parts of the net, the per-appearance probability of a mosquito coming close to holes of different sizes (hole encounter) and the per-encounter probability of mosquitoes passing through holes of different sizes (hole passage). Appearance frequency on different parts of the net reflected previously reported patterns: the area of the net under greatest mosquito pressure was the roof, followed by the bottom 30 cm of the sides, followed by the 30 cm area immediately above this, followed by the upper two-thirds of the sides. The ratio of activity in these areas was (respectively) 250:33:5:1. Per-appearance probability of hole encounter on all parts of the net was strongly predicted by a factor combining hole perimeter and area. Per-encounter probability of hole passage, in turn, was strongly predicted by hole width. For a given width, there was a 20% greater risk of passage through holes on the roof than holes on the sides. Appearance, encounter and passage predictors correspond to various mosquito behaviours that have previously been described and are combined into a prototype mosquito entry risk tool that predicts mosquito entry rates for nets with various amounts of damage. Scenarios that use the entry risk tool to test the recommendations of the WHOPES proportionate hole index (pHI) suggest that the pHI hole size categories and failure to account for hole location likely sometimes lead to incorrect conclusions about net serviceability that could be avoided by using an entry risk tool of the form presented here instead. Practical methods of collecting hole position, shape and size information for bed net assessments using the tool in the field are discussed and include using image analysis and on-line geometric analysis tools.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Other 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Materials Science 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 30%

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 25 April 2020.
All research outputs
#12,855,965
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,035
of 5,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,353
of 317,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#85
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,592 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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 317,441 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.