2002
DOI: 10.1590/s0074-02762002000700008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field trials of an improved cost-effective device for detecting peridomestic populations of Triatoma infestans (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) in rural Argentina

Abstract: An improved device for detecting peridomestic Triatoma infestans consisting of one-liter recycled Tetra Brik milk boxes with a central structure was tested using a matched-pair study design in two rural areas in Argentina. In Olta (La Rioja), the boxes were installed beneath the thatched roofs and on the vertical wooden posts of each peridomestic structure. After a 5-month exposure, at least one of the recovered boxes detected 88% of the 24 T. infestans-positive sites, and 86% of the 7 negative sites by timed … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(14 reference statements)
0
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As defined here, they differ from the traditional, ‘active’ surveillance approach in that control programme agents do not search the whole residence to determine whether it is infested; instead, they rapidly check for bugs (or their traces) in a ‘detection device’. Table 3 summarises the main results of major comparative studies [20]–[22], [26]–[28], [130], [132], [134][140]. In general, the sensitivity of vector-detection devices does not seem to be superior to that of active searches, but (i) both methods appear to complement each other, with only one of them revealing infestation in many instances (see also ref.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As defined here, they differ from the traditional, ‘active’ surveillance approach in that control programme agents do not search the whole residence to determine whether it is infested; instead, they rapidly check for bugs (or their traces) in a ‘detection device’. Table 3 summarises the main results of major comparative studies [20]–[22], [26]–[28], [130], [132], [134][140]. In general, the sensitivity of vector-detection devices does not seem to be superior to that of active searches, but (i) both methods appear to complement each other, with only one of them revealing infestation in many instances (see also ref.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, after successful elimination of triatomine populations conspecific triatomine species can re-infest triatomine-free houses [63], [64]. To detect re-infesting triatomines artificial shelter units or biosensor boxes have been already used, but they are of limited sensitivity for the detection of triatomines [65]–[67]. Thus, highly sensitive surveillance methods are required that can especially detect low level re-infestations of triatomines [55].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cardboard boxes simulating refuges have been used as a part of the intra-domiciliary surveillance of Chagas disease vectors in endemic areas of Latin America ( Gomez Núñez 1965 , Wisnivesky-Colli et al 1987 ). Other refuge-like devices composed of simple, resistant materials have also proven to be effective for outdoor bug detection ( Vazquez-Prokopec et al 2002 ). Currently, none of these devices includes artificial lures, however, this possibility deserves further exploration.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%