English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Longitudinal monitoring of outdoor-biting malaria vector populations is becoming increasingly important in understanding the dynamics of residual malaria transmission. However, the human landing catch (HLC), the gold standard for measuring human biting rates indoors and outdoors, is costly and raises ethical concerns related to increased risk of infectious bites among collectors. Consequently, routine data on outdoor-feeding mosquito populations are usually limited because of the lack of a scalable tool with similar sensitivity to outdoor HLC.    Methodology  The  Anopheles  trapping sensitivity of four baited proxy outdoor trapping methods—Furvela tent trap (FTT), host decoy trap (HDT), mosquito electrocuting traps (MET) and outdoor CDC light traps (OLT)—was assessed relative to HLC in a 5 × 5 replicated Latin square conducted over 25 nights in two villages of western Kenya. Indoor CDC light trap (ILT) was run in one house in each of the compounds with outdoor traps, while additional non-Latin square indoor and outdoor HLC collections were performed in one of the study villages.    Results  The MET, FTT, HDT and OLT sampled approximately 4.67, 7.58, 5.69 and 1.98 times more  An. arabiensis  compared to HLC, respectively, in Kakola Ombaka. Only FTT was more sensitive relative to HLC in sampling  An. funestus  in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 5.59, 95% CI 2.49–12.55,  P  < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 4.38, 95% CI 1.62–11.80,  P  = 0.004) and in sampling  An. arabiensis  in Masogo (RR = 5.37, 95% CI 2.17–13.24,  P  < 0.001). OLT sampled significantly higher numbers of  An. coustani  in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.65–5.56,  P  < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 2.88, 95% CI 1.15–7.22,  P  = 0.02) compared to HLC. OLT, HLC and MET sampled mostly  An. coustani , FTT had similar proportions of  An. funestus  and  An. arabiensis , while HDT sampled predominantly  An. arabiensis  in both villages. FTT showed close correlation with ILT in vector abundance for all three species at both collection sites.    Conclusion  FTT and OLT are simple, easily scalable traps and are potential replacements for HLC in outdoor sampling of  Anopheles  mosquitoes. However, the FTT closely mirrored indoor CDC light trap in mosquito indices and therefore may be more of an indoor mimic than a true outdoor collection tool. HDT and MET show potential for sampling outdoor host-seeking mosquitoes. However, the traps as currently designed may not be feasible for large-scale, longitudinal entomological monitoring. Therefore, the baited outdoor CDC light trap may be the most appropriate tool currently available for assessment of outdoor-biting and malaria transmission risk.    Graphic abstractSupplementary Information  The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13071-021-04794-3.

Comparison of four outdoor mosquito trapping methods as potential replacements for human landing catches in western Kenya