A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of Different Sampling Methods to Catch Lymphatic Filariasis Vectors in a Sudan Savannah Area of Mali. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • There is a demand for improved mosquito monitoring tools for diseases like lymphatic filariasis and malaria, leading to a study comparing various collection methods.
  • The research took place in two villages in Mali from 2011 to 2012 using human landing catch (HLC), Ifakara tent trap type C (ITTC), and Biogents sentinel trap (BGST) to collect Anopheles mosquitoes.
  • Results indicated that HLC was more effective in mosquito collection, though both ITTC and HLC showed similar infection prevalence for Wuchereria bancrofti, suggesting ITTC is a viable alternative for monitoring purposes.

Article Abstract

There is a need for better tools to monitor the transmission of lymphatic filariasis and malaria in areas undergoing interventions to interrupt transmission. Therefore, mosquito collection methods other than human landing catch (HLC) are needed. This study aimed to compare the Ifakara tent trap type C (ITTC) and the Biogents sentinel trap (BGST) to the HLC in areas with different vector densities. Mosquitoes were collected in two villages in Mali from July to December in 2011 and 2012. The three methods were implemented at each site with one ITTC, one BGST, and one HLC unit that consisted of one room with two collectors-one indoor and the other outdoor. The Anopheles collected in 2011 were individually dissected, whereas those from 2012 were screened in pools using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to determine the maximum infection prevalence likelihood (MIPL) for Wuchereria bancrofti and Plasmodium falciparum. The dissection of the females also allowed to assess the parity rates, as well its results. Over the 2 years, the HLC method collected 1,019 Anopheles, yields that were 34- and 1.5-fold higher than those with the BGST and ITTC, respectively. None of the dissected Anopheles were infected. The RT-PCR results showed comparable MIPL between HLC and ITTC for W. bancrofti with one infected pool from each trap's yield (respectively 0.03% [0.0009-0.2%] and 0.04% [0.001-0.2%]). For P. falciparum, no infected pool was recovered from BGST. The ITTC is a good alternative to HLC for xenomonitoring of program activities.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8991329PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.21-0667DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lymphatic filariasis
8
bgst hlc
8
bgst ittc
8
infected pool
8
hlc
6
ittc
5
comparison sampling
4
sampling methods
4
methods catch
4
catch lymphatic
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!