↓ Skip to main content

Comparative performance of three experimental hut designs for measuring malaria vector responses to insecticides in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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 performance of three experimental hut designs for measuring malaria vector responses to insecticides in Tanzania
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1221-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis J. Massue, William N. Kisinza, Bernard B. Malongo, Charles S. Mgaya, John Bradley, Jason D. Moore, Filemoni F. Tenu, Sarah J. Moore

Abstract

Experimental huts are simplified, standardized representations of human habitations that provide model systems to evaluate insecticides used in indoor residual spray (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) to kill disease vectors. Hut volume, construction materials and size of entry points impact mosquito entry and exposure to insecticides. The performance of three standard experimental hut designs was compared to evaluate insecticide used in LLINs. Field studies were conducted at the World Health Organization Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) testing site in Muheza, Tanzania. Three East African huts, three West African huts, and three Ifakara huts were compared using Olyset(®) and Permanet 2.0(®) versus untreated nets as a control. Outcomes measured were mortality, induced exophily (exit rate), blood feeding inhibition and deterrence (entry rate). Data were analysed using linear mixed effect regression and Bland-Altman comparison of paired differences. A total of 613 mosquitoes were collected in 36 nights, of which 13.5 % were Anopheles gambiae sensu lato, 21 % Anopheles funestus sensu stricto, 38 % Mansonia species and 28 % Culex species. Ifakara huts caught three times more mosquitoes than the East African and West African huts, while the West African huts caught significantly fewer mosquitoes than the other hut types. Mosquito densities were low, very little mosquito exit was measured in any of the huts with no measurable exophily caused by the use of either Olyset or Permanet. When the huts were directly compared, the West African huts measured greater exophily than other huts. As unholed nets were used in the experiments and few mosquitoes were captured, it was not possible to measure difference in feeding success either between treatments or hut types. In each of the hut types there was increased mortality when Permanet or Olyset were present inside the huts compared to the control, however this did not vary between the hut types. Both East African and Ifakara huts performed in a similar way although Ifakara huts allowed more mosquitoes to enter, increasing data power. The work convincingly demonstrates that the East African huts and Ifakara huts collect substantially more mosquitoes than the West African huts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Madagascar 1 1%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 24%
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 18 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,266,660
of 23,306,612 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,813
of 5,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,831
of 300,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#120
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,306,612 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,652 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 300,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.