Cited by 33Insects and Parasite InteractionsForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesDiptera species taxonomy and behavior

Household pit latrines as a potential source of the fly Musca sorbens– a one year longitudinal study from The Gambia

Emerson, Paul M., Simms, Victoria M., Makalo, Pateh, Bailey, Robin L.·2005·Tropical Medicine & International Health

Abstract

Summary: Objectives To assess whether the trachoma vector Musca sorbens was breeding in household latrines in a trachoma‐endemic part of The Gambia. Methods Longitudinal study of flies emerging from 16 sentinel household latrines selected at random from a list of all latrines present in four Gambian villages. Latrines were surveyed and fly traps were set over the drop hole for 24 h once per month for a year. Results All the sentinel latrines were of the ‘Gambian improved household latrine’ design, which has a cement slab but is not ventilated or fly‐proofed. The latrines were all in regular use by a family, mean number of users per latrine 14.8 (SD 8.0, range 2–29). Of 55 351 flies caught in 192 catches 54 130 (97.8%) were Chrysomya albiceps, 690 (1.2%) Musca domestica, 466 (0.8%) Chrysomya regalis and 65 (0.1%) M. sorbens. Of the M. sorbens caught 61 (93.8%) were female. Conclusions Gambian improved household pit latrines cannot be considered a source of the trachoma vector M. sorbens, and the promotion of pit latrines as a method to reduce M. sorbens is warranted. A large number of C. albiceps were caught emerging from the latrines, but this species is not considered to be of medical importance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01432.x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Emerson, P. M., Simms, V. M., Makalo, P., & Bailey, R. L.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • MRC Unit the Gambia (GM)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Emerson, Paul M.
  • Simms, Victoria M.
  • Makalo, Pateh
  • Bailey, Robin L.
Venue
Tropical Medicine & International Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06-16
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
706-709
ISSN
  • 1360-2276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3156
OpenAlex
W2075932501
Cited by
33
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Tropical Medicine & International Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Insects and Parasite Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Diptera species taxonomy and behavior
Keywords
Musca sorbens, Chrysomya albiceps, Musca domestica, latrine use, Gambia
MeSH terms
Animals, Equipment Design, Female, Gambia, Health Surveys, Housing, Humans, Insect Vectors, Longitudinal Studies, Muscidae, Toilet Facilities, Trachoma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review