↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mosquito repellents for malaria prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
1 policy source
17 tweeters
3 Facebook pages
3 Wikipedia pages


43 Dimensions

Readers on

236 Mendeley
Mosquito repellents for malaria prevention
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011595.pub2
Pubmed ID

Marta F Maia, Merav Kliner, Marty Richardson, Christian Lengeler, Sarah J Moore


Malaria is an important cause of illness and death across endemic regions. Considerable success against malaria has been achieved within the past decade mainly through long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs). However, elimination of the disease is proving difficult as current control methods do not protect against mosquitoes biting outdoors and when people are active. Repellents may provide a personal protection solution during these times. To assess the impact of topical repellents, insecticide-treated clothing, and spatial repellents on malaria transmission. We searched the following databases up to 26 June 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; US AFPMB; CAB Abstracts; and LILACS. We also searched trial registration platforms and conference proceedings; and contacted organizations and companies for ongoing and unpublished trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomized controlled trials of topical repellents proven to repel mosquitoes; permethrin-treated clothing; and spatial repellents such as mosquito coils. We included trials that investigated the use of repellents with or without LLINs, referred to as insecticide-treated nets. Two review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. A third review author resolved any discrepancies. We analysed data by conducting meta-analysis and stratified by whether the trials had included LLINs. We combined results from cRCTs with individually RCTs by adjusting for clustering and presented results using forest plots. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Eight cRCTs and two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Six trials investigated topical repellents, two trials investigated insecticide-treated clothing, and two trials investigated spatial repellents.Topical repellentsSix RCTS, five of them cluster-randomized, investigated topical repellents involving residents of malaria-endemic regions. Four trials used topical repellents in combination with nets, but two trials undertaken in displaced populations used topical repellents alone. It is unclear if topical repellents can prevent clinical malaria (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.07, very low certainty evidence) or malaria infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.12, low-certainty evidence) caused by P. falciparum. It is also unclear if there is any protection against clinical cases of P. vivax (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.76, low-certainty evidence) or incidence of infections (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.41, low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of trials including insecticide-treated nets did not show a protective effect of topical repellents against malaria. Only two studies did not include insecticide-treated nets, and they measured different outcomes; one reported a protective effect against clinical cases of P. falciparum (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71); but the other study measured no protective effect against malaria infection incidence caused by either P. falciparum or P. vivax.Insecticide-treated clothingInsecticide-treated clothing were investigated in trials conducted in refugee camps in Pakistan and amongst military based in the Colombian Amazon. Neither study provided participants with insecticide-treated nets. In the absence of nets, treated clothing may reduce the incidence of clinical malaria caused by P. falciparum by approximately 50% (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence) and P. vivax (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.01, low-certainty evidence).Spatial repellentsTwo cluster-randomized RCTs investigated mosquito coils for malaria prevention. We do not know the effect of spatial repellents on malaria prevention (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72, very low certainty evidence). There was large heterogeneity between studies and one study had high risk of bias. There is insufficient evidence to conclude topical or spatial repellents can prevent malaria. There is a need for better designed trials to generate higher certainty of evidence before well-informed recommendations can be made. Adherence to daily compliance remains a major limitation. Insecticide-treated clothing may reduce risk of malaria infection in the absence of insecticide-treated nets; further studies on insecticide-treated clothing in the general population should be done to broaden the applicability of the results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 235 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 22%
Researcher 42 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 66 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 5%
Environmental Science 8 3%
Other 48 20%
Unknown 72 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2021.
All research outputs
of 19,059,873 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 383,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,059,873 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 383,524 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.