Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
Two human participants with an exposed arm carried out 6 x 5 min catches once with the electronic mosquito repellent (EMR) switched on and once off
Number of observers: 12
Number of observations: 12 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. EMR switched on
2. EMR switched off (control)
EMR suppliers: Murray Distributors Ltd., North Vancouver B.C.; Peak Distributions Ltd., Surrey; Moziquit supplied by Electronic pest control Ltd., Montreal P.Q.
EMR frequency: 2 to 5 KHz |
|
| | Outcomes | Aedes and Culex mosquito landing rates/min/participant |
|
| | Notes | Location: Canada
The raw number of landings with EMR switched off was not provided, but it was mentioned that the differences of the landing rates with a EMR on and off was not significant |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
Catches carried out in 18 different locations in a forest at 2, 5, and 10 min (a total period of 102 min) intervals in the late afternoon to early evening with electronic mosquito repellent (EMR) on or off
Number of observers: 6
Number of observations: 30 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. EMR switched on
2. EMR switched off (control)
EMR supplier: unclear
EMR frequency: not mentioned |
|
| | Outcomes | Anopheles, Aedes, and Culex mosquito landing rates/person |
|
| | Notes | Location: USA |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
5 min landing counts carried out on 7 occasions by single catchers with and without electronic mosquito repellent (EMR)
Number of observers: 1
Number of observations: 7 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. EMR
2. No EMR (control)
EMR supplier: not mentioned
EMR frequency: not mentioned |
|
| | Outcomes | Aedes and Culiseta mosquito landing rates/person/h |
|
| | Notes | Location: Alaska, USA |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
Participants 30 m apart in a wooded area caught mosquitoes landing on their arm and hand for 4 min with or without 2 types of electronic mosquito repellent (EMR). So for each, EMR 8 min collection with EMR and 8 min collection without EMR
Number of observers: 5
Number of observations: 12 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. 2 types of EMR
2. No EMR (control)
EMR source: ME Electronic Mosquito Repellent; Buzz-Off repellent
EMR frequency: not mentioned |
|
| | Outcomes | Aedes mosquito mean landing rate/person |
|
| | Notes | Location: Canada |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
5 x 1 min biting counts made by 2 participants walking 20 paces along a path once with the electronic mosquito repellent (EMR) on and the other time off
Number of observers: 2
Number of observations: 10 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. EMR switched on
2. EMR switched off (control)
EMR supplier: not mentioned
EMR frequency: 5.2 KHz |
|
| | Outcomes | Aedes and Culex mosquito mean landing rates/person/min |
|
| | Notes | Location: USA |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
3 participants carried out catches in 3 sites 10 m apart in 4 x 45 min catching experiments each consisting of 3 x 15 min and each of those to 3 x 5-min intervals once with electronic mosquito repellent (EMR) and once without. Participants with and without EMR were rotated
Number of observers: 3
Number of observations: 12 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. EMR
2. No EMR (control)
EMR supplier: Antipic
EMR frequency: not mentioned |
|
| | Outcomes | Aedes and Mansonia total bites |
|
| | Notes | Location: Canada |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
3 participants carried 15 observations x 5 min with the electronic mosquito repellent (EMR) on or off
Number of observers: 3
Number of observations: 15 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. EMR switched on
2. EMR switched off
EMR supplier: Skeeter Skat, Anti-parasite block, local Russian produced device
EMR frequency: 125 to 74,600 Hz |
|
| | Outcomes | Aedes, Culiseta, and Culex mosquito landing rates/person/h |
|
| | Notes | Location: Russia |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
4 participants carried out the catches once without the electronic mosquito repellent (EMR) and once 2 participants carried one type of EMR and the other 2 two carried other type while walking in a wooded area where Aedes taeniorhynchus mosquitoes were abundant. They stopped every 20 paces and counted the mosquitoes on their arms. After each count the mosquitoes were killed to avoid recounting
Number of observers: 4
Number of observations: 44 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. 2 types of EMR
2. No EMR (control)
EMR supplier: Buzz-Off; Norris Electronic Mosquito Repeller
EMR frequency: not mentioned |
|
| | Outcomes | Aedes mosquito landing rate/person |
|
| | Notes | Location: USA |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
Experiment 1: 2 teams of 2 catchers each seated 30 m apart. Each catcher collected mosquitoes for 30 minutes at 2 periods during the night. In the first period, the first team were exposed to the electronic mosquito repellent (EMR) and in the second period, the second team was exposed. Repeated on 2 consecutive nights
Experiment 2: single catchers (1 with EMR and other without) sat 25 m apart and made 2 x 30 min catches over 6 nights, so a total of 2 x 2 x 30 x 6 min catches. EMRs were swapped each night between catchers
Experiment 3: single catchers (1 with EMR and other without) sat 25 m apart made 2 x 30 min catches over 4 nights, so a total of 2 x 2 x 30 x 4 min catches. EMRs were swapped each night between catchers
Number of observers: 4 (experiment 1); 1 (experiments 2 and 3)
Number of observations: 16 (experiment 1); 12 (experiment 2 and 3) |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. EMR
2. No EMR (control)
EMR supplier: Moziquit from Electronic Pest Controls Ltd.
EMR frequency: 2.2.5 KHz |
|
| | Outcomes | Number of Anopheles, Aedes, and Culex mosquitoes landing |
|
| | Notes | Location: The Gambia |
|
|
|
| Methods | Design: field study of experimental intervention versus control
18 houses chosen and grouped into 9 pairs. Each pair with a pair of working and not working electronic mosquito repellents (EMRs) that were swapped every night. 18 catches were undertaken in each house, 9 with and 9 without EMR. So a total of 9 x 9 catches in 18 houses, all together 324 catches each for 12 hours were made which makes a total catch of 3888 person hours
Number of observers: 18
Number of observations: 324 |
|
| | Participants | Human adults |
|
| | Interventions | 1. Functional EMRs
2. Inoperable EMRs (control)
EMR supplier: Isotronic, Horb, Germany
EMR frequency: 3 to 11 KHz |
|
| | Outcomes | Anopheles, Aedes, Culex, and Mansonia mosquito landing/house/night |
|
| | Notes | Location: Gabon |
|
|
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
|
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|
| | Andrade 2001 | Laboratory-based EMR study |
| | Arevad 1982 | Field-based EMR, but unclear if time, locality and bait were controlled |
| | Cabrini 2006 | Laboratory-based EMR study |
| | Curtis 1982 | Laboratory-based EMR study |
| | Foster 1985 | Laboratory-based EMR study |
| | Iglisch 1983 | Laboratory-based EMR study |
| | Jensen 2000 | Field trial but no proper control used; number of caught mosquitoes pooled together for 2 chemical repellents and EMR such that mosquito landing rates with and without EMR could not be calculated |
| | Singleton 1977 | Laboratory-based EMR study |
|
|
Table 1. Study methodological quality (risk of bias)
Table 2. Mosquito landing rates
|
| |
|
aSee '' for study details.
bUsing crude units, data given in paper.
cLanding rates between 2 and 7/min with no significant difference between groups.
dBased on recalculation of the crude data in the paper.
|
