Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25413142›Full record

SynthesisMalaria journal2014

Are topical insect repellents effective against malaria in endemic populations? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anne L Wilson, Vanessa Chen-Hussey, James G Logan, Steve W Lindsay

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Malaria journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.7field-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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Topical repellents for malaria prevention.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Mosquito repellents for malaria prevention.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Making scents of mosquito repellents.Trends in parasitology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Serological evidence of continued exposure toFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anne L WilsonSchool of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK. anne.wilson@durham.ac.uk.
Vanessa Chen-Hussey
James G Logan
Steve W Lindsay
Durham University · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecommended vector control tools against malaria, such as long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), mainly target mosquitoes that rest and feed on human hosts indoors. However, in some malaria-endemic areas, such as Southeast Asia and South America, malaria vectors primarily bite outdoors meaning that LLINs and IRS may be less effective. In these situations the use of topical insect repellents may reduce outdoor biting and morbidity from malaria. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of topical insect repellents against malaria.

methodsStudies were identified using database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and clinical trials registers), as well as reference list searches and contact with researchers. Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were included that assessed the effect of topical repellents (all active ingredients and concentrations) on Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax malaria or infection in malaria-endemic populations. Meta-analysis of clinical data was conducted in order to generate summary risk ratios.

resultsTen trials met the inclusion criteria. Studies varied in terms of repellent active ingredient and formulation, co-interventions, study population, compliance, and follow-up period. Topical repellents showed an 18% protective efficacy against P. falciparum malaria, although this was not significant (95% CI: -8%, 38%). Similarly, the average protective efficacy of topical repellents against P. vivax malaria did not reach significance (protective efficacy: 20%, 95% CI: -37%, 53%). Exclusion of non-randomized trials from the meta-analysis did not alter the findings.

conclusionsAlthough topical repellents can provide individual protection against mosquitoes, the results of this meta-analysis indicate that topical repellents are unlikely to provide effective protection against malaria. However, there was substantial heterogeneity between studies included and the relatively small number of studies meant that this heterogeneity could not be fully explored in the analysis. Further well-designed trials of topical repellents at appropriate doses and alternative modes of repellent delivery, such as spatial repellents and long-lasting insecticide-treated clothing, are required.

Indexed as

Endemic DiseasesHumansInsect RepellentsMalaria, FalciparumMalaria, VivaxRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeInsect Repellents

Identifiers

PMID25413142
PMCPMC4246562
OpenAlexW2162913903

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.