A Systematic Review of Mosquito Coils and Passive Emanators: Defining Recommendations for Spatial Repellency Testing Methodologies.

Mosquito coils, vaporizer mats and emanators confer protection against mosquito bites through the spatial action of emanated vapor or airborne pyrethroid particles. These products dominate the pest control market; therefore, it is vital to characterize mosquito responses elicited by the chemical actives and their potential for disease prevention. The aim of this review was to determine effects of mosquito coils and emanators on mosquito responses that reduce human-vector contact and to propose scientific consensus on terminologies and methodologies used for evaluation of product formats that could contain spatial chemical actives, including indoor residual spraying (IRS), long lasting insecticide treated nets (LLINs) and insecticide treated materials (ITMs). PubMed, (National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine, NIH), MEDLINE, LILAC, Cochrane library, IBECS and Armed Forces Pest Management Board Literature Retrieval System search engines were used to identify studies of pyrethroid based coils and emanators with key-words "Mosquito coils" "Mosquito emanators" and "Spatial repellents". It was concluded that there is need to improve statistical reporting of studies, and reach consensus in the methodologies and terminologies used through standardized testing guidelines. Despite differing evaluation methodologies, data showed that coils and emanators induce mortality, deterrence, repellency as well as reduce the ability of mosquitoes to feed on humans. Available data on efficacy outdoors, dose-response relationships and effective distance of coils and emanators is inadequate for developing a target product profile (TPP), which will be required for such chemicals before optimized implementation can occur for maximum benefits in disease control

Clinical symptoms, signs and tests for identification of impending and current water-loss dehydration in older people (Review)

BackgroundThere is evidence that water-loss dehydration is common in older people and associated with many causes of morbidity and mortality.However, it is unclear what clinical symptoms, signs and tests may be used to identify early dehydration in older people, so that support can be mobilised to improve hydration before health and well-being are compromised.ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of state (one time), minimally invasive clinical symptoms, signs and tests to be used as screeningtests for detecting water-loss dehydration in older people by systematically reviewing studies that have measured a reference standard and at least one index test in people aged 65 years and over. Water-loss dehydration was defined primarily as including everyone with either impending or current water-loss dehydration (including all those with serum osmolality ≥ 295 mOsm/kg as being dehydrated).Search methodsStructured search strategies were developed for MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and HTAdatabases (The Cochrane Library), and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Reference lists of included studiesand identified relevant reviews were checked. Authors of included studies were contacted for details of further studies.Selection criteriaTitles and abstracts were scanned and all potentially relevant studies obtained in full text. Inclusion of full text studies was assessed independently in duplicate, and disagreements resolved by a third author. We wrote to authors of all studies that appeared to have collected data on at least one reference standard and at least one index test, and in at least 10 people aged ≥ 65 years, even where no comparative analysis has been published, requesting original dataset so we could create 2 x 2 tables.Data collection and analysis.Diagnostic accuracy of each test was assessed against the best available reference standard for water-loss dehydration (serum or plasma osmolality cut-off≥295mOsm/kg, serumosmolarity or weight change) within each study. For each index test study data were presented in forest plots of sensitivity and specificity. The primary target condition was water-loss dehydration (including either impending or current water-loss dehydration). Secondary target conditions were intended as current (> 300 mOsm/kg) and impending (295 to 300 mOsm/kg) water-loss dehydration, but restricted to current dehydration in the final review.We conducted bivariate random-effects meta-analyses (Stata/IC, StataCorp) for index tests where there were at least four studies and study datasets could be pooled to construct sensitivity and specificity summary estimates. We assigned the same approach for index tests with continuous outcome data for each of three pre-specified cut-off points investigated.Pre-set minimum sensitivity of a useful test was 60%, minimum specificity 75%. As pre-specifying three cut-offs for each continuoustest may have led to missing a cut-off with useful sensitivity and specificity, we conducted post-hoc exploratory analyses to createreceiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves where there appeared some possibility of a useful cut-off missed by the original three.These analyses enabled assessment of which tests may be worth assessing in further research. A further exploratory analysis assessed the value of combining the best two index tests where each had some individual predictive ability.Main resultsThere were few published studies of the diagnostic accuracy of state (one time), minimally invasive clinical symptoms, signs or tests tobe used as screening tests for detecting water-loss dehydration in older people. Therefore, to complete this review we sought, analysed and included raw datasets that included a reference standard and an index test in people aged ≥ 65 years.We included three studies with published diagnostic accuracy data and a further 21 studies provided datasets that we analysed. Weassessed 67 tests (at three cut-offs for each continuous outcome) for diagnostic accuracy of water-loss dehydration (primary targetcondition) and of current dehydration (secondary target condition).Only three tests showed any ability to diagnose water-loss dehydration (including both impending and current water-loss dehydration) as stand-alone tests: expressing fatigue (sensitivity 0.71 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.96), specificity 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85), in one study with 71 participants, but two additional studies had lower sensitivity); missing drinks between meals (sensitivity 1.00 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00), specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.86), in one study with 71 participants) and BIA resistance at 50 kHz (sensitivities 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and specificities of 1.00 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.00) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.99) in 15 and 22 people respectively for two studies, but with sensitivities of 0.54 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.81) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.79) and specificities of 0.50 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.84) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.21) in 21 and 1947 people respectively in two other studies). In post-hoc ROC plots drinks intake, urine osmolality and axillial moisture also showed limited diagnostic accuracy. No test was consistently useful in more than one study.Combining two tests so that an individual both missed some drinks between meals and expressed fatigue was sensitive at 0.71 (95%CI 0.29 to 0.96) and specific at 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97).There was sufficient evidence to suggest that several stand-alone tests often used to assess dehydration in older people (including fluid intake, urine specific gravity, urine colour, urine volume, heart rate, dry mouth, feeling thirsty and BIA assessment of intracellular water or extracellular water) are not useful, and should not be relied on individually as ways of assessing presence or absence of dehydration in older people.No tests were found consistently useful in diagnosing current water-loss dehydration.Authors’ conclusionsThere is limited evidence of the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom, sign or test or combination of tests to indicatewater-loss dehydration in older people. Individual tests should not be used in this population to indicate dehydration; they miss a highproportion of people with dehydration, and wrongly label those who are adequately hydrated.Promising tests identified by this review need to be further assessed, as do new methods in development. Combining several tests may improve diagnostic accuracy

Clinical and physical signs for identification of impending and current water-loss dehydration in older people

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:.To determine the diagnostic accuracy of state, minimally invasive clinical and physical signs (or sets of signs) to be used as screening tests for detecting impending or current water-loss dehydration, or both, in older people by systematically reviewing studies that have measured a reference standard and at least one index test in people aged 65 years and over..To assess the effect of different cut offs of index test results assessed using continuous data on sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of impending or current water-loss dehydration..To identify clinical and physical signs that may be used in screening for impending or current water-loss dehydration in older people..To identify clinical and physical signs that are not useful in screening for impending or current water-loss dehydration in older people..To directly compare promising index tests (sensitivity ? 0.60 and specificity ? 0.75) where two or more are measured in a single study (direct comparison)..To carry out an exploratory analysis to assess the value of combining the best three index tests where the three tests each have some predictive ability of their own, and individual studies include participants who had all three tests.We will explore sources of heterogeneity of diagnostic accuracy of individual clinical and physical signs that show some evidence of discrimination by the reference standard used, cut off value for tests providing continuous data, type of participants (community-dwelling older people, those in residential care, and those in hospital), sex, and baseline prevalence of dehydration.5. To carry out an exploratory analysis to assess the value of combining the best three index tests where the three tests each have some predictive ability of their own, and individual studies include participants who had all three tests.We will explore sources of heterogeneity of diagnostic accuracy of individual clinical and physical signs that show some evidence ofdiscrimination by the reference standard used, cut off value for tests providing continuous data, type of participants (communitydwellingolder people, those in residential care, and those in hospital), sex, and baseline prevalence of dehydration