Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25299481›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2014

Benefit of insecticide-treated nets, curtains and screening on vector borne diseases, excluding malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anne L Wilson, Ramesh C Dhiman, Uriel Kitron, Thomas W Scott, Henk van den Berg, Steven W Lindsay

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Evidence map of strategies for preventing and controllingRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Anne L WilsonSchool of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, Stockton Road, Durham, United Kingdom.
Ramesh C DhimanNational Institute of Malaria Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India.
Uriel KitronDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Thomas W ScottFogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America; Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America.
Henk van den BergLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Steven W LindsaySchool of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, Stockton Road, Durham, United Kingdom.
Durham University · GBEmory University · USNational Institute of Malaria Research · INUniversity of California, Davis · USWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInsecticide-treated nets (ITNs) are one of the main interventions used for malaria control. However, these nets may also be effective against other vector borne diseases (VBDs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of ITNs, insecticide-treated curtains (ITCs) and insecticide-treated house screening (ITS) against Chagas disease, cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis, dengue, human African trypanosomiasis, Japanese encephalitis, lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and Tropical Disease Bulletin databases were searched using intervention, vector- and disease-specific search terms. Cluster or individually randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials with pre- and post-intervention data and rotational design studies were included. Analysis assessed the efficacy of ITNs, ITCs or ITS versus no intervention. Meta-analysis of clinical data was performed and percentage reduction in vector density calculated.

resultsTwenty-one studies were identified which met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of clinical data could only be performed for four cutaneous leishmaniasis studies which together showed a protective efficacy of ITNs of 77% (95%CI: 39%-91%). Studies of ITC and ITS against cutaneous leishmaniasis also reported significant reductions in disease incidence. Single studies reported a high protective efficacy of ITS against dengue and ITNs against Japanese encephalitis. No studies of Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis or onchocerciasis were identified.

conclusionThere are likely to be considerable collateral benefits of ITN roll out on cutaneous leishmaniasis where this disease is co-endemic with malaria. Due to the low number of studies identified, issues with reporting of entomological outcomes, and few studies reporting clinical outcomes, it is difficult to make strong conclusions on the effect of ITNs, ITCs or ITS on other VBDs and therefore further studies be conducted. Nonetheless, it is clear that insecticide-treated materials such as ITNs have the potential to reduce pathogen transmission and morbidity from VBDs where vectors enter houses.

Indexed as

Insecticide-Treated BednetsAnimalsArthropod VectorsDengueElephantiasis, FilarialEncephalitis, JapaneseHumansImmunologic TestsInsecticidesLeishmaniasisMalariaMosquito ControlInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID25299481
PMCPMC4191944
OpenAlexW2138261452

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.