坦桑尼亚东南部Kilombero山谷疟疾病媒取样方法的比较评价

Fredros O. Okumu, M. Kotas, J. Kihonda, E. Mathenge, G. Killeen, S. Moore
{"title":"坦桑尼亚东南部Kilombero山谷疟疾病媒取样方法的比较评价","authors":"Fredros O. Okumu, M. Kotas, J. Kihonda, E. Mathenge, G. Killeen, S. Moore","doi":"10.2174/1874315300801010051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To monitor malaria transmission, effective sampling methods for host seeking vectors are necessary. The suit- ability of these methods can be determined by field measurements of their trapping efficiencies. We compared the effi- ciencies of the Human Landing Catch (HLC), the Centers for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) placed next to occu- pied bednets and the Mbita trap for sampling Anopheles gambiae s.l and Anopheles funestus. The sampling methods were rotated through three houses, each with a human bait, for 8 cycles in a 3 x 3 Latin-square design. Relative to the HLC, the efficiency (and 95% c. i) of the CDC-LT for sampling An. gambiae s.l. was 0.331 (0.237 - 0.460) while that for Mbita trap was 0.031 (0.013 - 0.077). For An. funestus however, the sampling efficiencies were 0.818 (0.611 - 1.096) and 0.022 (0.003-0.165) respectively. We conclude that both the CDC-LT placed next to an occupied bednet and the Mbita trap are less efficient than HLC, the latter being evidently unsuitable for use in the Kilombero Valley.","PeriodicalId":88762,"journal":{"name":"The open tropical medicine journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"51-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"42","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Methods Used for Sampling Malaria Vectors in the Kilombero Valley, South Eastern Tanzania\",\"authors\":\"Fredros O. Okumu, M. Kotas, J. Kihonda, E. Mathenge, G. Killeen, S. Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1874315300801010051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To monitor malaria transmission, effective sampling methods for host seeking vectors are necessary. The suit- ability of these methods can be determined by field measurements of their trapping efficiencies. We compared the effi- ciencies of the Human Landing Catch (HLC), the Centers for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) placed next to occu- pied bednets and the Mbita trap for sampling Anopheles gambiae s.l and Anopheles funestus. The sampling methods were rotated through three houses, each with a human bait, for 8 cycles in a 3 x 3 Latin-square design. Relative to the HLC, the efficiency (and 95% c. i) of the CDC-LT for sampling An. gambiae s.l. was 0.331 (0.237 - 0.460) while that for Mbita trap was 0.031 (0.013 - 0.077). For An. funestus however, the sampling efficiencies were 0.818 (0.611 - 1.096) and 0.022 (0.003-0.165) respectively. We conclude that both the CDC-LT placed next to an occupied bednet and the Mbita trap are less efficient than HLC, the latter being evidently unsuitable for use in the Kilombero Valley.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The open tropical medicine journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"51-55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"42\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The open tropical medicine journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874315300801010051\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open tropical medicine journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874315300801010051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

摘要

为了监测疟疾传播,需要有效的宿主寻找媒介抽样方法。这些方法的适用性可以通过实地测量它们的捕获效率来确定。我们比较了人类着陆捕蚊器(HLC)、美国疾病控制与预防中心的灯诱蚊器(CDC-LT)和取样冈比亚按蚊和funestus按蚊的Mbita诱蚊器的效率。采样方法在三个房屋中轮换,每个房屋都有一个人饵,在3 × 3拉丁方形设计中进行8个周期。相对于hplc, CDC-LT取样An的效率(和95% c. i)。gambiae s.l.为0.331 (0.237 ~ 0.460),Mbita陷阱为0.031(0.013 ~ 0.077)。对于一个。鼠的采样效率分别为0.818(0.611 ~ 1.096)和0.022(0.003 ~ 0.165)。我们得出结论,将CDC-LT放置在被占用的蚊帐旁边和Mbita陷阱的效率都低于HLC,后者显然不适合在Kilombero山谷使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Evaluation of Methods Used for Sampling Malaria Vectors in the Kilombero Valley, South Eastern Tanzania
To monitor malaria transmission, effective sampling methods for host seeking vectors are necessary. The suit- ability of these methods can be determined by field measurements of their trapping efficiencies. We compared the effi- ciencies of the Human Landing Catch (HLC), the Centers for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) placed next to occu- pied bednets and the Mbita trap for sampling Anopheles gambiae s.l and Anopheles funestus. The sampling methods were rotated through three houses, each with a human bait, for 8 cycles in a 3 x 3 Latin-square design. Relative to the HLC, the efficiency (and 95% c. i) of the CDC-LT for sampling An. gambiae s.l. was 0.331 (0.237 - 0.460) while that for Mbita trap was 0.031 (0.013 - 0.077). For An. funestus however, the sampling efficiencies were 0.818 (0.611 - 1.096) and 0.022 (0.003-0.165) respectively. We conclude that both the CDC-LT placed next to an occupied bednet and the Mbita trap are less efficient than HLC, the latter being evidently unsuitable for use in the Kilombero Valley.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信