Cited by 50Mosquito-borne diseases and controlDengue and Mosquito Control ResearchEntomopathogenic Microorganisms in Pest Control

Community effectiveness of copepods for dengue vector control: systematic review

Open access
Lazaro, A., Han, W. W., Manrique‐Saide, P., George, L., Velayudhan, R., Toledo, J., Runge Ranzinger, S., Horstick, O.·2015·Tropical Medicine & International Health

Abstract

Objective: Vector control remains the only available method for primary prevention of dengue. Several interventions exist for dengue vector control, with limited evidence of their efficacy and community effectiveness. This systematic review compiles and analyses the existing global evidence for community effectiveness of copepods for dengue vector control. Methods: The systematic review follows the PRISMA statement, searching six relevant databases. Applying all inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were included. Results: There is evidence that cyclopoid copepods ( Mesocyclops spp.) could potentially be an effective vector control option, as shown in five community effectiveness studies in Vietnam. This includes long‐term effectiveness for larval and adult control of Ae. aegypti , as well as dengue incidence. However, this success has so far not been replicated elsewhere (six studies, three community effectiveness studies – Costa Rica, Mexico and USA , and three studies analysing both efficacy and community effectiveness – Honduras, Laos and USA ), probably due to community participation, environmental and/or biological factors. Judging by the quality of existing studies, there is a lack of good study design, data quality and appropriate statistics. Conclusion: There is limited evidence for the use of cyclopoid copepods as a single intervention. There are very few studies, and more are needed in other communities and environments. Clear best practice guidelines for the methodology of entomological studies should be developed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/tmi.12485

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There remains little evidence to suggest that biological control has widespread potential.

    “Consistent with earlier specific reviews [32, 34], there remains little evidence to suggest that biological control has widespread potential.”

    From Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Conclusion says evidence for copepods as a single dengue-vector intervention is very limited and that the success seen in Vietnam has not been demonstrated elsewhere. This supports caution about their widespread use, but the review does not assess biological control as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [8]8. McCall PJ & Kittayapong P. Control of dengue vectors: tools and strategies. In: World Health Organization, S. P. F. R. A. T. I. T. D. (ed.). Scientific Working Group on Dengue Research. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
  2. [27]27. Nadeem R., 2011. Integrated control of dengue vector by Mesocyclops and Bacillus thuringiensis from Lahore, Pakistan, Thesis abstract, available online, http://library.gcu. edu.pk/Thesis/Zoo/Raheela669RMPH08.pdf (Accessed 05 March 2015)
  3. [34]34. Marten GG & Reid JW. Cyclopoid copepods. In: Floore TG (ed.). Biorational control of mosquitoes. Bulletin No. 7. J Mosq Cont Assoc 23(Suppl.):65-92.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lazaro, A., Han, W. W., Manrique‐Saide, P., George, L., Velayudhan, R., Toledo, J., Runge Ranzinger, S., & Horstick, O.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico
  • Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre (IN)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Ministério da Saúde (BR)
  • Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases WHO Geneva Switzerland
Corresponding author
Horstick, O.
Venue
Tropical Medicine & International Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-22
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
685-706
ISSN
  • 1360-2276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3156
OpenAlex
W1998122145
Cited by
50
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tropical Medicine & International Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (282589, 7th FP)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mosquito-borne diseases and control
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Dengue and Mosquito Control Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Entomopathogenic Microorganisms in Pest Control
Keywords
copepods, dengue vector control, Mesocyclops, Aedes aegypti, Cyclopoida, community effectiveness, larval control, community participation, dengue incidence, biological control
MeSH terms
Aedes, Animals, Dengue, Humans, Pest Control, Biological, Copepoda

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