Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Electronic mosquito repellents for preventing mosquito bites and malaria infection

  1. Ahmadali Enayati1,*,
  2. Janet Hemingway2,
  3. Paul Garner3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group

Published Online: 18 APR 2007

Assessed as up-to-date: 9 MAR 2009

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005434.pub2

How to Cite

Enayati A, Hemingway J, Garner P. Electronic mosquito repellents for preventing mosquito bites and malaria infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005434. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005434.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Medical Entomology, School of Public Health and Environmental Health Research Centre, Sari, Mazandaran, Iran

  2. 2

    Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

  3. 3

    Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, International Health Group, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK

*Ahmadali Enayati, Medical Entomology, School of Public Health and Environmental Health Research Centre, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, KM 18 Khazarabad Road, Sari, Mazandaran, 48175-1553, Iran. tmaae@liverpool.ac.uk; ahmadali_enayati@yahoo.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Stable (no update expected for reasons given in 'What's new')
  2. Published Online: 18 APR 2007

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

Malaria affects more than 250 million people and causes more than a million deaths each year (WHO 2005). One important control strategy against this and other mosquito-borne diseases is mosquito control, which aims to reduce human-mosquito contact. Different control measures are used routinely against mosquitoes and their larvae, including chemical (eg insecticide), biological (eg larvivorous fish or pathogenic fungi), environmental (eg land filling or drainage), and personal protection (eg mosquito repellents formulated as pills, coils, ointments, lotions, and sprays; and insecticide-treated or untreated bed nets).

Electronic mosquito repellents (EMRs) are marketed in response to a huge demand from the public for convenient, safe, and effective antimosquito products. Female Anopheles mosquitoes transmit malaria by sucking blood from humans, and these small handheld, battery-powered EMRs are intended to repel them by emitting a high frequency buzz almost inaudible to the human ear. They can be used both indoors and outdoors, and are claimed to repel mosquitoes within a range of up to 2.5 metres (Kutz 1974; Helson 1977). No adverse effects have been reported in the literature. Mobile phone companies also market a ring tone that is claimed to repel mosquitoes within a one-metre radius (BBC 2003).

Some of the EMRs seem to be based on known aspects of mosquito behaviour, while others have no scientific data to substantiate their claims. Manufacturers have put forward at least two reasons to explain the alleged repellent action of sound against mosquitoes. One reason is that the flight sound of males repels females once they have been inseminated (Foster 1985); hence, whatever mimics the males' flight sound may repel females. However, research has shown that male mosquitoes are actually the ones attracted by the female flight sound and females normally have a very weak sensitivity for sound compared with the males (Wigglesworth 1965; Chapman 1982; McIver 1985; Michelsen 1985). Another reason is that mosquitoes avoid the ultrasonic cries of bats (Foster 1985). Although both explanations may be conceivable, there is no published scientific information to support either idea.

Different brands of EMRs have been examined for their efficacy under laboratory conditions, none of which showed any effects for the devices tested (Singleton 1977; Curtis 1982; Iglisch 1983; Foster 1985; Jensen 2000; Andrade 2001; Cabrini 2006). There are review articles concluding that the EMRs are ineffective in repelling mosquitoes (Coro 1998; Coro 2000). Scientific skepticism over the last 30 years and a successful prosecution of EMR sellers under the UK Trade Description Act in 1980s (Curtis 1994; BBC 2005) seems to have done little to deter manufacturers marketing EMRs and the people who buy them. This is a concern because it is likely to lead to consumers not using other protective methods that are proven to work. This could result in an increased risk of infection with mosquito-borne diseases, especially malaria (Jensen 2000).

Despite the scientific view and research findings, EMRs are still widely promoted and used by the public. We therefore decided to systematically review all reliable research about the effects of high-pitched sounds in preventing mosquito bites and, hence, to assess whether there is any evidence that EMRs have any potential in preventing malaria in the field setting. We included only field studies since laboratory studies do not reflect influences on mosquito behaviour, including climate, mosquito density, and composition of different species in the same locality.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

To assess whether EMRs prevent mosquito bites, and to assess evidence of impact on malaria infection.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

 

Preventing mosquito bites

Field entomological studies that control for geographic site (conducted in same locality), time (conducted at same time), and attractiveness of human participants (by rotating participants between the experiments with and without the EMR).

 

Preventing malaria infection

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials.

 

Types of participants

Adults or children.

 

Types of interventions

 

Intervention

  • EMRs with any operational wavelength.

 

Control

  • Dummy EMRs, inoperable EMRs, EMRs switched off, or no EMRs. We excluded other repellents and treated or untreated bed nets as control.
  • If used, malaria chemoprophylaxis must be identical in both the intervention and control groups.

 

Types of outcome measures

  • The number of mosquitoes of any species landing on exposed body parts of humans acting as baits. Time period defined by entomological collection procedures.
  • Malaria infection, defined as clinical malaria (fever with malaria parasitaemia detected by microscopy or rapid test); or asymptomatic malaria parasitaemia.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

We attempted to locate all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress).

 

Databases

The following databases were searched using the search terms and strategy described in Appendix 1 : Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (March 2009); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1966 to March 2009); EMBASE (1974 to March 2009); LILACS (1982 to March 2009); Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA) (1982 to March 2009); and Science Citation Index (SCI) (1945 to March 2009).

 

Conference proceedings

The following conference proceedings were searched for relevant abstracts: XV International Congress of Tropical Medicine and Malaria, Cartagena, Colombia, August 2000; First MIM Pan-African Malaria Conference, Dakar, Senegal, 6 to 9 January 1997; Second MIM Pan-African Malaria Conference, Durban, South Africa, 15 to 19 March 1999; Third MIM Pan-African Malaria Conference, Arusha, Tanzania, 17 to 22 November 2002; Fourth MIM Pan-African Malaria Conference, Yaoundé, Cameroon, 13 to 18 November 2005; International Conference on Entomology, Brisbane, Australia, 15 to 21 August 2004; and Medicine and Health in the Tropics, Marseille, France, 11 to 15 September 2005.

 

Researchers, organizations, and manufacturers

We contacted some corresponding authors and field and clinical experts (Professor Chris Curtis, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Dr Morteza Zaim, WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES), Geneva, to enquire about other published or unpublished relevant studies (September 2006). We also contacted EMR manufacturers (Isotronic, Lentek International Inc., Electronic Pest Controls Ltd.) for unpublished and ongoing trials or studies (September 2005).

 

Reference lists

We also checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the above methods.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

AAE scanned the results of the literature search for potentially relevant studies and then retrieved the full articles. AAE and PG independently assessed the potentially relevant studies using an eligibility form based on the inclusion criteria; disagreements were resolved through discussion.

 

Data extraction and management

We independently extracted data from all included studies using a data extraction form and resolved any disagreements in the extracted data by referring to the original paper and through discussion. We described the devices tested and the number of observations made, and assessed the quality of the studies in relation to whether they controlled for study locality, time of day or night, participants (used same people to bait mosquitoes), and whether the observers were blinded. We also assessed the number of times observations were repeated to gain some quantitative measure of quality and grouped this with an arbitrary cut off into adequate (20 or more) or inadequate (less than 20).

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We summarized the results of the risk of bias assessment in  Table 1.

 

Data synthesis

The number of landings on which the rates were calculated varied considerably according to different ecological and geographical situations, mosquito species, and season and time of day of the tests. If possible, we would have tested for a difference using the original data to measure a mean difference between arms within one study and to calculate 95% confidence intervals. Had a difference been shown, we would also have examined the effects of EMR by a variety of factors: EMR frequency (< and ≥ 20 kHz); mosquito population density; malaria endemicity (< and ≥ entomological inoculation rate of 1/person/night); and mosquito species.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms
 

Description of studies

See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies.

We identified 18 potentially relevant studies of EMR to prevent mosquito bites and included 10 (see 'Characteristics of included studies' for study details); none were randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that used EMR to prevent malaria. We excluded eight studies because they were only laboratory based or because they did not provide any data or did not control for locality, time, and blinding (see 'Characteristics of excluded studies'). The papers for the 10 included studies contained 22 experiments, of which 15 were field experiments that met the reviews inclusion criteria; the excluded seven experiments were only laboratory based or used chemical repellents.

Seven studies were carried out in the North America, three in Canada (Helson 1977; Belton 1981; Lewis 1982) and four in the USA (Gorham 1974; Kutz 1974; Garcia 1976; Schreck 1977). Two studies were done in Africa, in Gabon (Sylla 2000) and in The Gambia (Snow 1977). One study was undertaken in Russia (Rasnitsyn 1974).

Seven studies gave the commercial name of the EMRs tested (Rasnitsyn 1974; Helson 1977; Schreck 1977; Snow 1977; Belton 1981; Lewis 1982; Sylla 2000); five studies gave some information about the ultrasound frequencies used, which ranged from 125 Hz to 74,600 Hz (Kutz 1974; Belton 1981; Rasnitsyn 1974; Snow 1977; Sylla 2000). The other studies gave no commercial name and no details of the frequencies used.

All studies counted mosquitoes landing on the bare body parts (mostly arms, legs and/or feet) of the human participants for definite time periods with the EMR switched on or off, or, in some studies, with or without a functional EMR as case and control. None of the field studies performed in North America and Russia were on Anopheles mosquitoes; they used Aedes, Culex, Culiseta, and Mansonia mosquitoes. The two studies in Africa were on Anopheles as well as other mosquitoes. The lowest number of observers was one (with 7 observations; Gorham 1974) and the highest was 18 (with 324 observations; Sylla 2000). Also, timing and length of collections varied, ranging from one minute (Kutz 1974) to over a 12-hour period (Sylla 2000).

 

Risk of bias in included studies

As shown in  Table 1, all studies made some attempts to control for locality (geography) of the study area (wooded area, forest, plain, beach) as they measured landing rates with and without the EMR in the same geographical area. Different individuals may have different attraction for the mosquitoes, and the studies controlled for this, usually by swapping the EMR between the participants so that the same individuals acted as both case and control.

The density of mosquitoes and the intensity with which they attempt to bite varies throughout day and night. Our inclusion criteria required studies to attempt to control for time. This was clearly described in all but one study (Garcia 1976).

One study blinded the observers to whether they were measuring during a control or experimental phase (Sylla 2000). The use of blinding was unclear or not used in the other studies.

In order to test significance, we intended to consider rates per person in participants in control or intervention areas. As landing rates were not given per person, we were unable to compare these data statistically. We recorded the number of times observations were repeated to gain some insight into data quality, arbitrarily defining this as adequate (with 20 or more repeated observations or human participants) and inadequate (less than 20 observations). Three studies were of adequate quality by this criterion.

 

Effects of interventions

The number of mosquitoes landing per collection with and without EMR are presented in  Table 2. All 10 studies reported that the landing rates with and without the EMR were little different and that the EMRs failed to repel mosquitoes. These results occurred regardless of the study location, mosquito density, mosquito genera, or time of study (ie day or night with day-biting and night-biting mosquitoes).

No trials were found to assess the effects of EMRs on malaria infection.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

The included studies were of good quality, had controlled for locality, and all but one had explicitly controlled for time of day or night, and the human bait for the mosquitoes. The results of this review provide clear evidence from field-based studies that there is no hint that these devices have any effect on mosquito landing rates. The studies reported here examined the effectiveness of the EMRs with different methods, settings, mosquito species (since they may respond differently to the high-pitched sounds emitted by the EMRs), frequencies of the sound emitted by the EMRs (since mosquitoes may respond to a particular sound wavelength), and times of day (since day-biting and night-biting mosquitoes may behave differently to the sound emitted by the EMRs), and mosquito density (since this may affect EMR efficacy), but none of them supported the claims of the EMRs' effectiveness. Although we did not conduct a meta-analysis of the included studies, there was no suggestion of difference in landing rates between cases and controls in any trial. In 12 of the 15 experiments, the landing rates in the groups with functioning EMR was actually higher than in the control groups. The absolute number of mosquitoes landing on the human participants during the experiments while the EMR was functioning was too high to consider the EMR a repellent.

EMRs are claimed to be effective by mimicking the sound waves produced by the beating of male mosquitoes' wings, especially during swarms. Female mosquitoes, which bite humans, are claimed to be repelled by this sound since they mate only once in their lives. Hence the repellent mechanism should be based on the hearing mechanism in females. However, this theory is implausible since the hearing ability of the females is relatively weak (Wigglesworth 1965; Chapman 1982; Michelsen 1985). It is the hearing system of males that is relatively strong, and the presence of numerous sound and vibration receptors (known as Johnston organ) on their plumose antennae enables them to detect the vibration in the environment as well as the sound of female mosquitoes (Chapman 1982). Thus it is not surprising that the included studies did not produce any evidence that EMRs act as repellents.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

EMRs are not effective in repelling mosquitoes and should not be recommended or used.

 
Implications for research

There is no evidence of an effect of EMRs on landing rates. Thus there is no evidence that these EMRs could potentially be useful in preventing malaria in humans. Given these findings from 10 carefully conducted studies, it would not be worthwhile to conduct further research on EMRs in preventing mosquitoes biting or in trying to prevent the acquisition of malaria.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

AA Enayati developed the protocol of the review during the Fellowship Programme organized by the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group in March 2005. The Department for International Development (DFID) UK supports this Programme through the Effective Health Care Research Programme Consortium at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

This document is an output from a project funded by the DFID for the benefit of developing countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

This review has no analyses.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. Search methods: detailed search strategiesa


Search setCIDG SRbCENTRALMEDLINEEMBASELILACS, CAS, SCI

1mosquito repellentmosquito*mosquito*mosquito$mosquito

2mosquito controlrepel*repel*repel$repel*

3controlcontrolcontrolcontrol

42 or 32 or 32 or 32 or 3

51 and 41 and 41 and 41 and 4

6MOSQUITO CONTROLMOSQUITO CONTROLultrasoundultrasound

75 or 6INSECT REPELLENTSelectronicelectronic

8electronicINSECT BITES AND STINGS/PREVENTION AND CONTROLdevice$6 or 7

9device$5 or 6 or 7 or 86 or 7 or 85 and 8

10ultrasoundultrasound5 and 9

118 or 9 or 10electronic

127 and 11device$

1310 or 11 or 12

149 and 13



aUpper case: MeSH or EMTREE heading; lower case: free text term.
bCochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register.

 

What's new

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

Last assessed as up-to-date: 9 March 2009.


DateEventDescription

14 March 2012AmendedThe CIDG is piloting a new classification system for reviews. The classification for this review has now been added; description included in "Published notes" section of review

15 February 2010Review declared as stableGiven the current evidence, there appears little justification for further trials of electronic mosquito repellents and they should not be recommended or used. The authors therefore do not plan to update this review.



 

History

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

Protocol first published: Issue 3, 2005
Review first published: Issue 2, 2007


DateEventDescription

9 March 2009New search has been performedSearch updated. No new studies found

18 August 2008AmendedConverted to new review format with minor editing.



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

AA Enayati developed and wrote the review. P Garner helped develop the review, developed and applied inclusion and quality criteria, extracted data, and helped write the review. J Hemingway initiated the review and helped with technical issues. AA Enayati is the guarantor.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

None known.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK.

 

External sources

  • Department of International Development, UK.

 

Notes

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

2012, Issue 4: Status: Current question – no update intended. Further research unlikely to change conclusions.

As of 15 February 2010, this Cochrane Review is no longer being updated, as there is high-quality evidence that electronic mosquito repellents are not effective, meaning further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

The review status is  a pilot system used by the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group to help the reader understand whether the review is concerns a current question, and is up to date.

We report on:

1. The question the review addresses. Is it a:

  • Historical question, where the intervention or policy has been superseded by new medical developments (such as a new drug); or a
  • Current question, which is still relevant to current policy or practice.

2. Whether the review is up to date. Is the review:

  • Up to date;
  • Update pending; or
  • No update intended.

We then provide comment on the review status, to help explain the categories selected.

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract摘要
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Notes
  18. Characteristics of studies
  19. References to studies included in this review
  20. References to studies excluded from this review
  21. Additional references
Belton 1981 {published data only}
Garcia 1976 {published data only}
  • Garcia R, Des Rochers B, Voigt WG. Evaluation of electronic mosquito repellers under laboratory and field conditions. Vector Views 1976;23(5/6):21-3.
Gorham 1974 {published data only}
Helson 1977 {published data only}
  • Helson BV, Wright RE. Field evaluation of electronic mosquito repellers in Ontario. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario. 1977; Vol. 108:59-61.
Kutz 1974 {published data only}
Lewis 1982 {published data only}
Rasnitsyn 1974 {published data only}
  • Rasnitsyn SP, Alekseev AN, Gornostaeva RM, Kupriianova ES, Potapov AA. Negative results of test of sound generator devices designed for mosquito repellence. Meditsinskaia Parazitologiia i Parazitarnye Bolezni 1974;43(6):706-8.
Schreck 1977 {published data only}
  • Schreck CE, Weidhaas DE, Smith N. Evaluation of electronic sound-producing buzzers against Aedes taeniorhynchus and Ae. solicitans. Mosquito News 1977;37(3):529-31.
Snow 1977 {published data only}
Sylla 2000 {published data only}
  • Sylla el-H K, Lell B, Kremsner PG. A blinded, controlled trial of an ultrasound device as mosquito repellent. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 2000;112(10):448-50.

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract摘要
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Notes
  18. Characteristics of studies
  19. References to studies included in this review
  20. References to studies excluded from this review
  21. Additional references
Andrade 2001 {published data only}
  • Andrade CFS, Bueno VS. Evaluation of electronic mosquito-repelling devices using Aedes albopictus (Skuse) (Diptera: Culicidae). Neotropical Entomology 2001;30(3):497-9.
Arevad 1982 {published data only}
  • Arevad K. Evaluation of an electronic mosquito-repelling device. Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory Annual Report 1982:21.
Cabrini 2006 {published data only}
Curtis 1982 {published data only}
  • Curtis C, White G. Once bitten, twice shy. New Scientist 1982;93:328.
Foster 1985 {published data only}
  • Foster WA, Lutes KI. Tests of ultrasonic emissions on mosquito attraction to hosts in a flight chamber. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1985;1(2):199-202.
Iglisch 1983 {published data only}
  • Iglisch VI. Mosquito-repellent efficacy of sound-wave-emitting apparatus [Zur stechmuckenabweisenden Wirksamkeit von schallwellenerzeugenden Geraten]. Anzeiger fur Schadlingskde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz 1983;56:135-40.
Jensen 2000 {published data only}
  • Jensen T, Lampman R, Slamecka MC, Novak RJ. Field efficacy of commercial antimosquito products in Illinois. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 2000;16(2):148-52.
Singleton 1977 {published data only}

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract摘要
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Notes
  18. Characteristics of studies
  19. References to studies included in this review
  20. References to studies excluded from this review
  21. Additional references
BBC 2003
  • S Korean mobiles to zap mosquitoes. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3063401.stm 14 July 2003.
BBC 2005
  • Mosquito buzzers' worth queried. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218234.stm 6 September 2005.
Chapman 1982
  • Chapman RF. The insects: structure and function. 3rd Edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1982.
Coro 1998
  • Coro F, Suarez S. Electronic repellents against mosquitoes: the propaganda and the reality [Repelentes electronicos contra mosquitos: propaganda y realidad]. Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical 1998;50(2):89-92.
Coro 2000
  • Coro F, Suarez S. Review and history of electronic mosquito repellers. Wing Beats 2000;11(2):6-7.
Curtis 1994
  • Curtis CF. Anti-mosquito buzzers, advertising and the law. Wing Beats 1994;5:10-2.
McIver 1985
  • McIver SB. Mechanoreception. In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert LI editor(s). Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology. Vol. 6, Oxford: Pergamon, 1985:71-133.
Michelsen 1985
  • Michelsen A, Larsen ON. Hearing and sound. In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert LI editor(s). Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology. 6th Edition. Oxford: Pergamon, 1985:495-556.
WHO 2005
  • Global Partnership to Roll Back Malaria. World malaria report: 2005. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2005.
Wigglesworth 1965
  • Wigglesworth VB. The principles of insect physiology. 6th Edition. London: Methuen, 1965.