↓ Skip to main content

Comparability between insecticide resistance bioassays for mosquito vectors: time to review current methodology?

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Comparability between insecticide resistance bioassays for mosquito vectors: time to review current methodology?
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-0971-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry F Owusu, Danica Jančáryová, David Malone, Pie Müller

Abstract

Insecticides play an integral role in the control of mosquito-borne diseases. With resistance to insecticides on the rise, surveillance of the target population for optimal choice of insecticides is a necessity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bottle assay and the World Health Organization (WHO) susceptibility test are the most frequently used methods in insecticide resistance monitoring. However, the two bioassays differ in terms of insecticide delivery and how insecticide susceptibility is measured. To evaluate how equivalent data from the two assays are, we compared the two methods side-by-side. We did a literature search from 1998 to December 2014 to identify publications that performed both assays on the same mosquito population and compared the results. We then tested the WHO and CDC bioassays on laboratory strains of Aedes aegypti, Anopheles stephensi, An. gambiae and An. arabiensis with different insecticide resistance levels against permethrin, λ-cyhalothrin, DDT, bendiocarb and malathion. In addition, we also measured the relationship between time-to-knockdown and 24 h mortality. Both published data and results from the present laboratory experiments showed heterogeneity in the comparability of the two bioassays. Following their standard procedures, the two assays showed poor agreement in detecting resistance at the WHO cut-off mark of 90 % (Cohen's κ = 0.06). There was better agreement when 24 h mortality was recorded in the CDC bottle assay and compared with that of the WHO susceptibility test (Cohen's κ = 0.5148). Time-to-knockdown was shown to be an unreliable predictor of 24 h mortality. Even though the two assays can detect insecticide resistance, they may not be used interchangeably. While the diagnostic dose in the WHO susceptibility test does not allow for detecting shifts at low or extreme resistance levels, time-to-knockdown measured in the CDC bottle assay is a poor predictor of 24 h mortality. Therefore, dose-response assays could provide the most flexibility. New standardized bioassays are needed that produce consistent dose-response measurements with a minimal number of mosquitoes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Madagascar 1 <1%
Unknown 169 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 19%
Student > Master 34 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 30 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 7%
Environmental Science 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 37 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,482,287
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#965
of 5,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,175
of 262,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#17
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,482 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 262,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.