SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Systematic review of Aedes aegypti control trials suggests publication bias related to author disclosure of conflicts of interest.
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAedes aegypti mosquitoes transmit multiple arboviruses, including dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever, resulting in a large global disease burden. Vector control remains the key strategy to prevent transmission due to the absence of widely available vaccines or treatments. Many studies evaluate control approaches, yet only a subset are published in peer-reviewed journals. One potential contributor to selective reporting, or publication bias, could be a conflict of interest (COI), defined as employment by a for-profit company conducting the trial, or a financial interest tied to the tool's intellectual property. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe conducted a systematic literature review of Ae. aegypti control trials from 2010 to 2022 to test the hypothesis that published trials with author-declared COI report a higher average level of Ae. aegypti suppression than publications whose authors declare no COI. Inclusion criteria required entomological outcomes (adult abundance or immature indices) with baseline and post-intervention data for both treated and untreated areas. Studies limited to laboratory, semi-field, or virus-only outcomes were excluded. We identified 51 publications that met the inclusion criteria. The studies with declared COI reported a 56.7% reduction in Ae. aegypti population, significantly higher than the 34.5% reduction in studies declaring no COI. The 51 studies were published in 26 different journals and eight (30.7%) did not have standard publishing policies that include the reporting of authors' COI statements in the published articles. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings suggest that author-reported COI is associated with higher mosquito population suppression. This association may reflect the use of more effective interventions in COI-affiliated studies or publication bias. We also observed inconsistencies in COI policies and the display of COI statements across journals, underscoring the need for standardized and transparent reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.