↓ Skip to main content

Comparative evaluation of anopheline sampling methods in three localities in Indonesia

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Comparative evaluation of anopheline sampling methods in three localities in Indonesia
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2161-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brandyce St. Laurent, Supratman Sukowati, Timothy A. Burton, David Bretz, Mulyadi Zio, Syah Firman, Sumardi, Heru Sudibyo, Amalia Safitri, Suwito, Puji B. Asih, Sully Kosasih, Shinta, William A. Hawley, Thomas R. Burkot, Frank H. Collins, Din Syafruddin, Neil F. Lobo

Abstract

The effectiveness of vector control efforts can vary based on the interventions used and local mosquito behaviour and adaptability. In many settings, biting patterns of Anopheles mosquitoes can shift in response to interventions targeting indoor-biting mosquitoes, often resulting in higher proportions of mosquitoes feeding outside or at times when people are not protected. These behaviourally resistant mosquitoes have been shown to sustain residual malaria transmission and limit control efforts. Therefore, it is important to accurately sample mosquitoes to understand their behaviour. A variety of traps were evaluated in three geographically diverse sites in malaria-endemic Indonesia to investigate local mosquito feeding behaviour and determine effective traps for surveillance. Eight traps were evaluated in three sites: Canti village, Lampung, Kaliharjo village, Purworejo, and Saketa village, Halmahera, Indonesia, including the gold standard human landing collection (HLC) and a variety of traps targeting host-seeking and resting mosquitoes both indoors and outdoors. Trapping, using indoor and outdoor HLC, the Ifakara tent trap C, goat and human-occupied tents, resting pots and boxes, and CDC miniature light traps was conducted for 16 nights in two sites and 8 nights in a third site, using a Latin square design. Trap efficacy varied by site, with outdoor HLC yielding the highest catch rates in Canti and Kaliharjo and a goat-baited tent trap proving most effective in Saketa. In Canti village, anthropophilic Anopheles sundaicus were caught indoors and outdoors using HLCs, peaking in the early morning. In Kaliharjo, a variety of mosquitoes were caught, mostly outdoors throughout the night. HLC was ineffective in Saketa, the only site where a goat-baited tent trap was tested. This trap was effective in catching zoophilic vectors outdoors before midnight. Different trapping methods were suitable for different species, likely reflecting differences in behaviour among species. The three villages, each located on a different island in the Indonesian archipelago, contained mosquito populations with unique behaviours. These data suggest that the effectiveness of specific vector monitoring and control measures may vary by location.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 16 19%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 16 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 6%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 18 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,372,208
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,992
of 5,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,942
of 442,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#81
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,598 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 442,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.