https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9829-788X
Figures
Abstract
Background
Aedes aegypti mosquitoes transmit multiple arboviruses, including dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever, resulting in a large global disease burden. Vector control remains the key strategy to prevent transmission due to the absence of widely available vaccines or treatments. Many studies evaluate control approaches, yet only a subset are published in peer-reviewed journals. One potential contributor to selective reporting, or publication bias, could be a conflict of interest (COI), defined as employment by a for-profit company conducting the trial, or a financial interest tied to the tool’s intellectual property.
Methodology/principal findings
We conducted a systematic literature review of Ae. aegypti control trials from 2010 to 2022 to test the hypothesis that published trials with author-declared COI report a higher average level of Ae. aegypti suppression than publications whose authors declare no COI. Inclusion criteria required entomological outcomes (adult abundance or immature indices) with baseline and post-intervention data for both treated and untreated areas. Studies limited to laboratory, semi-field, or virus-only outcomes were excluded. We identified 51 publications that met the inclusion criteria. The studies with declared COI reported a 56.7% reduction in Ae. aegypti population, significantly higher than the 34.5% reduction in studies declaring no COI. The 51 studies were published in 26 different journals and eight (30.7%) did not have standard publishing policies that include the reporting of authors’ COI statements in the published articles.
Conclusions/significance
Our findings suggest that author-reported COI is associated with higher mosquito population suppression. This association may reflect the use of more effective interventions in COI-affiliated studies or publication bias. We also observed inconsistencies in COI policies and the display of COI statements across journals, underscoring the need for standardized and transparent reporting.
Author summary
Many studies evaluate Aedes aegypti mosquito vector control approaches, but only a subset are published. One possible contributor to selective reporting, or publication bias, is the presence of a conflict of interest (COI), such as employment by the company conducting the trial or a financial conflict tied to intellectual property. We conducted a systematic review of field trials of Ae. aegypti control from 2010-2022 and examined whether studies in which authors disclose a COI report higher vector suppression than studies declaring no COI. Among 51 studies that met inclusion criteria, those with declared COI reported greater Ae. aegypti reduction of 56.7% compared to 34.5% from studies that declared no COI. We also observed that COI statements are not consistently published across journals. These findings suggest potential publication bias and underscore the need for consistent, transparent COI disclosure policies to strengthen credibility and interpretation of vector control evidence.
Citation: Abdi AA, Juarez JG, Harris T, Magalhaes T, Hamer GL (2026) Systematic review of Aedes aegypti control trials suggests publication bias related to author disclosure of conflicts of interest. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 20(1): e0013914. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013914
Editor: Olaf Horstick, University of Heidelberg, GERMANY
Received: April 23, 2025; Accepted: January 5, 2026; Published: January 14, 2026
This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Data Availability: All data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. The dataset and supplementary tables used in this study are included within the manuscript and Supporting information files.
Funding: This work was supported by Texas A&M AgriLife Research (GLH). AAA was supported by the U.S. Navy through the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP) (AAA). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Once restricted to Africa, the Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) mosquito is now widespread across tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world due to human-mediated transport and trade, ecological adaptation to urban container habitats [1], and human feeding behavior [2,3]. Aedes aegypti has become the primary vector of agents of diseases such as dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and chikungunya viruses [4–6], which places an estimated 5.7 billion people at risk of exposure to Aedes-borne viruses in suitable areas [7,8]. The lack of approved vaccines or treatments for these Aedes-borne viruses makes vector control strategies the key factor to curtail disease transmission. Studies have assessed the substantial economic burden of major Aedes-borne diseases globally and the costs associated with vector surveillance and control programs targeting this mosquito [9–12].
The global health challenge posed by Ae. aegypti results in large control campaigns implemented by public health agencies to reduce vector populations. While area-wide control programs by governmental agencies have observed success [13–16], the burden of disease remains high which requires researchers to evaluate existing control tools or develop innovative methods to suppress Ae. aegypti populations [17–19]. A significant challenge in advancing the field is the underreporting of field trials that evaluate vector control tools but yield negative or null results, such research regularly fails to get published [20]. This lack of publication results in publication bias which arises from the selective publication of studies based on the direction and magnitude of their findings; studies without statistical significance (i.e., negative results) are less likely to be published [21–25]. Another source of publication bias is that studies are often conducted by companies or owners of intellectual property with direct interests in the field. This context could create a conflict of interest (COI) when determining which studies are submitted to journals for publication and which are not. While it is difficult to systematically evaluate the lack of Ae. aegypti control studies with negative data in peer-reviewed literature, it is possible to evaluate the potential for COI to influence which studies get published. Our hypothesis is that authors having a COI will report a higher average level of Ae. aegypti suppression achieved by the control activity compared to publications with authors not having a COI. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a systematic literature review of all Ae. aegypti control trials from 2010 to 2022 to investigate the level of reported population suppression as it relates to the authors disclosure of a COI.
Methods
Search strategy and selection criteria
We conducted a systematic literature review using Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed. This review used keyword searches for “Aedes aegypti control” and “Aedes aegypti intervention” from 2010 through 2022. We used 2010–2022 to capture the modern era of Aedes aegypti control trials spanning the pre- and post-Zika virus emergence and the more recent journal adoption of COI-disclosure policies, improving comparability of reporting across studies. When searching in WoS and PubMed, we selected the “all fields” option, which searches across all searchable fields in a single query. That allowed us to easily find our search terms in any field. The review identified studies that conducted control trials evaluating the efficacy of vector control tools against Ae. aegypti.
All publications resulting from the keyword search were judged based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included primary studies reporting results of an intervention or control trial on Ae. aegypti field populations, studies in which the intervention outcome variable reflects free-ranging Ae. aegypti populations, studies that included an entomological outcome variable of mosquitos - adult female Ae. aegypti abundance or any immature indices. Additionally, the study needed to have mosquito surveillance data in intervention areas receiving control and reference areas not receiving control - nearby control (e.g., neighboring house) did not count as an adequate control and the study needed to have both pre-intervention (baseline) and post-intervention data presented for both intervention and control communities/clusters.
We excluded insectary or semi-field trials, studies focused on virus as an outcome (e.g., only epidemiological outcome variables or mosquito infection with virus as an outcome variable); studies involving larvicide interventions where only treated larval habitat and control larval habitat are sampled, and review articles. The systematic review was conducted by a single author (AAA) and all candidate papers meeting inclusion criteria were discussed by two authors (AAA and GLH) to arrive at the final determination of exclusion or inclusion. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were categorized based on the authors, their affiliations, and the conflict of interest (COI) sections of the published articles. This categorization was used to determine the presence or absence of COI. Studies were classified as Declared COI, Declared no COI, or No statement (no COI/competing-interests text displayed). When no COI statement appeared in the article, we classified the study as “Declared no COI” to give the authors the benefit of the doubt, recognizing that some journals may omit or fail to display disclosures even when submitted. This classification was determined from the article’s COI text, and funding statements. We did not adjust author declarations using affiliations or funding; mentions of company employment are cited only in the Results/Discussion to illustrate variability in reporting relative to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidance [26], and were not used to reassign COI status.
For transparency, we present analyses both ways: (i) a combined analysis treating “No statement” papers as “Declared no COI,” and (ii) a restricted analysis including only studies that explicitly declared no COI (excluding “No statement”).
Data extraction
Not all studies reported a standardized result from intervention trials. Therefore, we used the Henderson formula [27–30], to calculate the percentage of Ae. aegypti population suppression for each study. See (S1 Text) for an example calculation; extraction details are provided in (S1 Data).
Henderson formula
We estimated the percentage of Aedes aegypti population suppression using the following formula:
T = Treatment area
U = Untreated area (control)
Where, T is equal to the posttreatment mean divided by the pretreatment mean in the treatment (intervention) area, and
U is the posttreatment mean divided by the pretreatment mean in the control area.
This allowed us to extract the level of efficacy achieved by the intervention by measuring the percent reduction in immature indices (e.g., larval index, pupae per house, pupal index) and adult female Ae. aegypti. Using the level of Ae. aegypti population suppression from each study, we present the means (± standard error, SE) for studies that declared COIs and those that declared no COIs.
The studies included in this review were geographically diverse, with interventions conducted across regions, some heavily affected by Ae. aegypti borne diseases and others not.
Statistical analysis
We calculated the mean percentage reduction of the Ae. aegypti population across studies. Data normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test and homogeneity of variances using Levene’s test. Due to non-normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test, p < 0.05), we used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare reduction percentages between groups with COI and without declared COI.
We also used quantile regression to measure the potential impact of COIs on the percent reduction of Ae. aegypti in each study, with COI as the main predictor and adjusting for intervention type (Insecticidal, Suppression, Community, Replacement) and geographic region. Countries were grouped into macro-regions (Africa, Americas, Asia, Oceania) to maintain adequate statistical power while accounting for geographic variation. Quantile regression allows us to study the impact of COIs at all levels of the Ae. aegypti reduction distribution, i.e., we can separately determine whether a COI are more influential when population suppression is high or low (see S1 Text). Complete statistical analysis code is available in S2 Text. Furthermore, unlike standard linear regression, quantile regression does not require conditional normality for inference and is robust to outliers. This makes quantile regression an appropriate choice for our data because it is heavily skewed and contains many outliers due to highly negative values based on the Henderson formula, which suggests higher vector abundance in the intervention sites compared to the control sites. The results of this analysis provide insights into the relationship between COI and reported mosquito population suppression.
All analyses and figures were conducted using R (version 4.5.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna) [31]. The map was generated with the sf and ggplot2 packages. Country borders were taken from Natural Earth “Admin 0 – Countries” (1:50m, public domain) via rnaturalearth. Borders were joined to study counts by ISO3 codes produced with countrycode. Antarctica was excluded; coordinates are WGS 84 (EPSG:4326) [32–36].
Results
The keyword search in PubMed and Web of Science for years 2010–2022 resulted in 9649 total papers, of which 3380 were duplicates (Fig 1). Of the 6269 papers screened, 5865 were excluded based on titles and abstracts. Of the 404 papers read in more detail, 353 were excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Therefore, we identified 51 publications from 2010-2022 that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review of Ae. aegypti control trials (Table 1).
Geographic distribution of studies
Fig 2 illustrates the geographic distribution of the studies included in this systematic review, highlighting the countries where Ae. aegypti control efforts were conducted between 2010 and 2022. From these studies, we extracted data on the journal’s conflict of interest reporting policies, whether authors disclosed any potential conflicts (Tables 1 and A in S1 Text) and the level of mosquito population suppression achieved in the intervention areas (Table B in S1 Text).
Countries are shaded by the number of included publications; circles show the count at each country centroid with both circle size and color scale with count. Basemap: Natural Earth Admin 0 – Countries (1:50m), public domain, accessed via the rnaturalearth R package (https://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/). Coordinates: WGS 84 (EPSG:4326). No proprietary map tiles were used.
For studies where authors either declared no COI or No statement of COI was reported, the average Ae. aegypti population suppression was 34.5% (SE = 4.2; 95% CI 26.2–42.7), compared to 56.7% (SE = 7.0; 95% CI 42.9–70.4) suppression in studies where authors reported the presence of COI (p-value = 0.025; Fig 3). The mean difference (declared COI declared no COI) was 22.2 percentage points (95% CI 6.1–38.3). After adjusting for intervention type and geographic region using median quantile regression, the COI effect remained significant (β = 0.322, SE = 0.125, p = 0.011). Relative to insecticidal interventions, community-based strategies were associated with significantly higher mosquito reduction (β = 0.308, p < 0.001), while replacement and suppression strategies showed no detectable differences. Aedes aegypti population suppression was significantly higher in the Americas (β = 0.448, p < 0.001) and Asia (β = 0.324, p = 0.003) compared to Africa, with no difference observed for Oceania. The presence of COI was independently associated with Ae. aegypti population suppression across all regions and intervention types.
The studies categorized as ‘No’ for COI include studies where authors either declared no COI or nothing about COI was reported.
Because not all journals consistently publish COI statements, we performed a restricted analysis limited to studies that explicitly declared no COI. This showed mean Ae. aegypti population suppression of 26.5% for studies declaring no COI compared to 56.7% in studies with declared COI (Wilcoxon p = 0.007). The adjusted model showed an even stronger COI effect (β = 0.397, SE = 0.165, p = 0.018), with the Americas showing significantly higher Ae. aegypti suppression than Africa (β = 0.330, p = 0.0006). These findings confirm the robustness of the COI association across different analytical approaches.
To further understand the impact of COI on study outcomes, we analyzed the distribution of COI effects across varying levels of suppression efficacy using a quantile regression adjusted for intervention type and macro-region. Of all the studies reporting the presence of COI, 39.3% fall below the Ae. aegypti population suppression value of 60%, while 60.7% are above. Of all the studies that either reported no COI or nothing about COI was reported, 65.0% fall below the Ae. aegypti population suppression value of 60%, while 35.0% are above. When suppression efficacy is high (there is no significant difference between studies that report a COI and studies that report no COI. The association between COI status and suppression was strongest (more positive) at lower levels of the distribution (
), meaning that studies with lower reported population suppression of Ae. aegypti have a greater difference with those studies that declared COI and those that declared no COI (Fig 4). These results identify an association, where a larger COI effect was observed for studies reporting minimal evidence of Ae. aegypti population suppression. This suggests that COI may disproportionately influence studies with lower reported Ae. aegypti suppression efficacy. In these adjusted quantile models, the COI effect remained generally positive and of similar magnitude, suggesting that intervention type and geographic region did not fully explain the higher suppression observed in COI studies.
The x-axis shows quantile levels (τ) from 0 to 100, which correspond to the rate of Aedes aegypti population suppression reported by the study. The y-axis displays the magnitude of the COI effect (β₂), which refers to the strength of the coefficient. Vertical lines represent ±2 standard errors around each estimate. Blue points and error bars indicate statistically significant coefficients (p < 0.05). Red points and error bars represent non-significant coefficients.
The 51 papers that met the inclusion criteria for this study were published in 26 different peer-reviewed journals. An unexpected result was that eight out of these 26 journals (30.7%) did not have standard publishing policies that include the reporting of authors’ COI statements in the published articles. While some of these journals sporadically disclose COI in a subset of published articles, other journals do not report COI for any published article.
Finally, published articles by different author teams had inconsistencies in how authors interpreted which circumstances represented a conflict requiring disclosure. For example, according to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) definition of COI [26,88], authors affiliated with either for-profit or not-for-profit organizations should be disclosed. As an example, Brelsfoard et al. [63] reported no COI, but according to the ICMJE guidelines, the authors should have disclosed that multiple authors were employees of the for-profit company that conducted the trial.
Discussion
This systematic review of Ae. aegypti population control trials suggests that publication bias may exist in the peer-reviewed literature. While this study is unable to detect the presence of publication bias due to studies that have undesirable outcomes (e.g., negative results showing a lack of suppression of Ae. aegypti populations), our results indicate that authors of publications with a COI tend to report a significantly higher levels of Ae. aegypti population suppression compared to authors of publications with no COI. Two or more mechanisms could result in this observation. One is that investigators of research trials evaluating mosquito control approaches may be using more effective tools when they have some type of COI present. If a patent exists around a vector control tool, that implies sufficient rigor and novelty which would suggest the vector control tool works to control Ae. aegypti at the population level. Accordingly, the observed differences in suppression could partly reflect differences in intervention effectiveness rather than bias introduced by COI itself. Another possibility is that investigators with a COI are conducting multiple vector control trials and only the trials with successful population suppression of Ae. aegypti are being submitted to journals for publication. This mechanism may be occurring, given this study’s observation that studies reporting lower levels of Ae. aegypti population suppression below 60% were more likely to be reported among author teams with no declared COI (either explicitly ‘no COI’ or no statement). Our quantile regression analysis indicates that the COI suppression association is most pronounced at lower efficacy levels (τ < 60) suggesting fewer COI-declared studies in the lower-suppression range. Notably, when suppression efficacy is high (τ > 60), there is no significant difference between studies reporting a COI and those with no COI, suggesting that any potential publication bias may be concentrated among studies with lower effectiveness. This suggests that author teams with a COI are less likely to publish an intervention trial when the level of success was low. These findings indicate an association between the reporting of COI in vector control trials and the level of Ae. aegypti population suppression, which does not imply direct causation.
Similar patterns have been observed in pharmaceutical research, where multiple systematic reviews have consistently demonstrated that industry-sponsored studies tend to report more favorable outcomes [25,89–92]. The implication that not all studies are equally likely to be published, particularly those with negative results, highlights the presence of publication bias in the mosquito vector control literature. This bias skews the available evidence which can lead to wasted resources as programs use tools that are less effective than evidence would suggest and results in redundant research. The underreporting of negative or null results can lead to unnecessary duplication of ineffective interventions, hindering progress in developing truly effective vector control solutions [93].
Several limitations of this study should be considered while interpreting these results. We only searched two literature databases (PubMed and Web of Science), so relevant studies indexed elsewhere, in the grey literature, or in non-English journals would have likely been missed. Not including papers published in non-English likely reduced the geographic distribution of studies observed in Fig 2. Initial screening was performed by a single author, with candidate papers meeting inclusion criteria being discussed with a second author. Literature screening independently by two authors, and then comparing any discrepancies in the resulting lists, would have reduced the risk of missing papers. COI status was determined strictly from each article’s published disclosures, author affiliations, and funding notes; when no disclosure appeared in the publication, we classified the study as “declared no COI.” Because journal policies and the reporting of disclosure statements vary, this unexpected observation confounded the testing of our hypothesis comparing the reporting of COI and the success of Ae. aegypti control trials. Finally, while we used the Henderson formula to standardize suppression values across studies, this approach does not remove ecological or operational heterogeneity (e.g., seasonality, sampling effort, or intervention intensity).
Another important discovery by this study is the wide heterogeneity in policies regarding COI among the entomological and public health journals that publish results of vector control trials. While most journals require authors to disclose COI during manuscript submission on their online portals, eight out of the 26 journals (30.7%) which included the papers in this study meeting inclusion criteria did not disclose COI in the publication. Some publishers of journals, such as PLOS, report author’s competing interests as a mandatory section in all publications. Other journals, such as the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, do not report COI in any of their published articles, which is concerning. Among the nine journals published by the Entomological Society of America, the reporting of COI has been sporadic and only appears in a small fraction of the papers in these journals. Our team recently published a study on a vector control tool in the Journal of Medical Entomology [94] and during the page proofs stage of the publication, we made a request to the editors and production staff that we include a COI statement, which they agreed to. We explained our rationale for why COI is important to report in all publications and the Director of Publications, Communications, and Marketing for the Entomological Society of America brought this subject to the attention of the Publication Council, and they are recommending that all future papers of ESA journals include a COI section.
Beyond the concern that some journals do not include a mandatory COI section in all publications is the variation in the definition of what type of COI authors should disclose. Our cursory review of different journal policies revealed variation in the author guidelines as it relates to COI. Organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) have launched initiatives to establish international standards for COI disclosures. COPE requires its 7000 member journals to comply with its Code of Conduct for Journal Editors [95], but some journals still do not adhere to these guidelines. This study’s results show that some authors are not reporting a COI which could be due to a journal not requiring that section in the published version of the paper, or because the authors are not clear on the definition of a COI. Indeed, the ICMJE definition of COI is not straight-forward, and describes any scenario where professional judgement concerning the publication of results could be influenced by a secondary interest [88]. Many journals have strict policies regarding human subjects research, reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Boards, and animal subjects research, reviewed by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. Journal editorial staff ensure that publications involving human subjects or animal subjects have proper permits indicating research compliance have been met. Additionally, anonymous peer reviewers of manuscripts submitted to journals are asked to comment on research compliance as it relates to human and animal subjects. However, it appears journals do not police the topic of COI with the same rigor. For example, simply having the author’s affiliations as a company conducting the control trial meets the definition of COI according to the ICMJE [88], and studies meeting inclusion criteria in this systematic review did not disclose those COIs [96]. Increased oversight from journals and institutions could help the scientific community improve transparency, accountability and reduce undisclosed COI [95,97]. To enhance transparency and address these issues, we recommend that journals adopt a standardized COI definition ideally based on internationally recognized guidelines, such as those provided by COPE and the ICMJE, and communicate this clearly in the author guidelines. This would ensure consistency and help authors understand exactly what needs to be disclosed. Importantly, the presence of a COI does not, by itself, invalidate scientific findings; however, consistent and transparent disclosure is essential for evaluating credibility and interpreting results in context. In addition, journal editors could strengthen oversight related to COI in a manner analogous to existing practice for human and animals subjects research.
In conclusion, the integrity of vector control research is paramount for advancing effective interventions against Ae. aegypti and other important arthropod vectors of human disease. This systematic literature review suggests that authors that disclose a conflict of interest tend to report a higher level of Ae. aegypti population suppression compared to authors that with declared no COI. This association of COI was most significant for studies reporting a lower level of Ae. aegypti population suppression, which is consistent with authors with a COI being less likely to publish studies with lower success. These results suggest potential publication bias in scientific literature related to the control of one of the world’s most important mosquito vectors of human pathogens. This study also indicates that journals are not consistent in the guidelines of COI and the practice of reporting COI in all publications. We emphasize a call for action is needed for journals, authors, and institutions to increase transparency, oversight, and accountability to reduce potential publication bias in the peer-reviewed literature and allow the field of organized vector control to make efficient advancements in controlling vectors responsible for a large burden of human disease.
Supporting information
S1 Text. A worked example of the Henderson formula used to estimate mosquito population suppression, along with an explanation of the quantile regression approach and the modeling strategy used to assess the impact of conflict of interest (COI) on reported outcomes.
Includes Table A (journal/COI reporting summary) and Table B (extracted suppression outcomes).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013914.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Text. R code for quantile regression analysis of conflict of interest effects with macro-region adjustment.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013914.s002
(PDF)
S1 PRISMA 2020 Checklist. Completed PRISMA 2020 checklist for the systematic review.
PRISMA 2020 checklist is available under CC BY 4.0; citation guidance: https://www.prisma-statement.org/citing-prisma-2020.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013914.s003
(PDF)
S1 Data. Detailed Henderson-Tilton calculations and source data for all 226 comparisons from 51 Aedes aegypti control studies.
Includes three sheets: (1) Main calculation - detailed extraction with pre/post intervention data, (2) MAIN - complete dataset for main analysis, (3) RESTRICTED - dataset limited to studies with explicit COI declarations. Note: Some values were extracted from figures when not reported numerically in text.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013914.s004
(XLSX)
References
- 1. Kraemer MUG, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQN, Shearer FM, Barker CM, et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Elife. 2015;4:e08347. pmid:26126267
- 2. League GP, Degner EC, Pitcher SA, Hafezi Y, Tennant E, Cruz PC, et al. The impact of mating and sugar feeding on blood-feeding physiology and behavior in the arbovirus vector mosquito Aedes aegypti. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(9):e0009815. pmid:34591860
- 3. Harrington LC, Edman JD, Scott TW. Why do female Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) feed preferentially and frequently on human blood?. J Med Entomol. 2001;38(3):411–22. pmid:11372967
- 4. Gómez M, Martinez D, Muñoz M, Ramírez JD. Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus microbiome/virome: new strategies for controlling arboviral transmission?. Parasit Vectors. 2022;15(1):287. pmid:35945559
- 5. McGregor BL, Connelly CR. A Review of the Control of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Continental United States. J Med Entomol. 2021;58(1):10–25. pmid:32829398
- 6. Sutherst RW. Global change and human vulnerability to vector-borne diseases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17(1):136–73. pmid:14726459
- 7. Lim A, Shearer FM, Sewalk K, Pigott DM, Clarke J, Ghouse A, et al. The overlapping global distribution of dengue, chikungunya, Zika and yellow fever. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):3418. pmid:40210848
- 8. Ilic I, Ilic M. Global Patterns of Trends in Incidence and Mortality of Dengue, 1990-2019: An Analysis Based on the Global Burden of Disease Study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60(3):425. pmid:38541151
- 9. Thompson R, Martin Del Campo J, Constenla D. A review of the economic evidence of Aedes-borne arboviruses and Aedes-borne arboviral disease prevention and control strategies. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2020;19(2):143–62. pmid:32077343
- 10. Touray M, Cimen H, Bode E, Bode HB, Hazir S. Effects of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacterial metabolites on the ovipositional activity of Aedes albopictus. J Pest Sci. 2024;97(4):2203–15.
- 11. Chen S, Cao Z, Jiao L, Chen W, Prettner K, Kuhn M, et al. The Global Economic Burden of Dengue in 2020–2050: Estimates and Projections for 141 Countries and Territories. Elsevier BV. 2024.
- 12. Leelavanich D, Dorigatti I, Turner HC. The Economic Burden of Dengue: A Systematic Literature Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. 2025.
- 13. Mulderij-Jansen V, Pundir P, Grillet ME, Lakiang T, Gerstenbluth I, Duits A, et al. Effectiveness of Aedes-borne infectious disease control in Latin America and the Caribbean region: A scoping review. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0277038. pmid:36322603
- 14. Gubler DJ, Clark GG. Community involvement in the control of Aedes aegypti. Acta Trop. 1996;61(2):169–79. pmid:8740894
- 15. Fox T, Sguassero Y, Chaplin M, Rose W, Doum D, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, et al. Wolbachia-carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;4(4):CD015636. pmid:38597256
- 16. Sanggara PM, Dewi DAR, Alfiansyah F, Susila GBNKT, Widuri LIT, Nadhira F, et al. The Effectiveness of Wolbachia Deployment as a Dengue Control Method: A Systematic Review. jhms. 2024;7(4).
- 17. Achee NL, Gould F, Perkins TA, Reiner RC Jr, Morrison AC, Ritchie SA, et al. A critical assessment of vector control for dengue prevention. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(5):e0003655. pmid:25951103
- 18. Bowman LR, Donegan S, McCall PJ. Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(3):e0004551. pmid:26986468
- 19. Alvarado-Castro V, Paredes-Solís S, Nava-Aguilera E, Morales-Pérez A, Alarcón-Morales L, Balderas-Vargas NA, et al. Assessing the effects of interventions for Aedes aegypti control: systematic review and meta-analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(Suppl 1):384. pmid:28699552
- 20. Axford N, Berry V, Lloyd J, Hobbs T, Wyatt K. Promoting Learning from Null or Negative Results in Prevention Science Trials. Prev Sci. 2022;23(5):751–63. pmid:32748164
- 21. Montori VM, Smieja M, Guyatt GH. Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000;75(12):1284–8. pmid:11126838
- 22. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994;272(2):158–62. pmid:8015133
- 23. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e66844. pmid:23861749
- 24. Hohlfeld A, Kredo T, Clarke M. A scoping review of activities intended to reduce publication bias in randomised trials. Syst Rev. 2024;13(1).
- 25. Veroniki AA, Wong EKC, Lunny C, Martinez Molina JC, Florez ID, Tricco AC, et al. Does type of funding affect reporting in network meta-analysis? A scoping review of network meta-analyses. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):81. pmid:37149700
- 26.
ICMJE |Disclosure of Interest. [cited 7 Oct 2025]. Available: https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/
- 27. Henderson ChasF, Tilton ElvinW. Tests with acaricides against the brown wheat mite. J Econ Entomol. 1955;48: 157–161.
- 28. Mount GA, Grothaus RH, Reed JT, Baldwin KF. Amblyomma americanum: area control with granules or concentrated sprays of diazinon, propoxur, and chlorpyrifos. J Econ Entomol. 1976;69(2):257–9. pmid:57127
- 29. Fonseca DM, Unlu I, Crepeau T, Farajollahi A, Healy SP, Bartlett-Healy K, et al. Area-wide management of Aedes albopictus. Part 2: gauging the efficacy of traditional integrated pest control measures against urban container mosquitoes. Pest Manag Sci. 2013;69(12):1351–61. pmid:23649950
- 30. Garcia-Luna SM, Chaves LF, Juarez JG, Bolling BG, Rodriguez A, Presas YE, et al. From Surveillance To Control: Evaluation of A Larvicide Intervention Against Aedes aegypti In Brownsville, Texas. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2019;35(3):233–7. pmid:31647710
- 31.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. 2023 [cited 19 July 2025]. Available: https://www.r-project.org/
- 32.
Natural Earth » Terms of Use - Free vector and raster map data at 1:10m, 1:50m, and 1:110m scales. [cited 22 Sept 2025]. Available: https://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/
- 33.
Pebesma E. Simple features for R: standardized support for spatial vector data. 2018.
- 34.
Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated; 2016.
- 35.
Massicotte P, South A. rnaturalearth: World map data from natural Earth. R package version 1.0. 1.9000. 2024.
- 36. Arel-Bundock V, Enevoldsen N, Yetman C. countrycode: An R package to convert country names and country codes. JOSS. 2018;3(28):848.
- 37. Vazquez-Prokopec GM, Che-Mendoza A, Kirstein OD, Bibiano-Marin W, González-Olvera G, Medina-Barreiro A, et al. Preventive residual insecticide applications successfully controlled Aedes aegypti in Yucatan, Mexico. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):21998. pmid:36539478
- 38. Martín-Park A, Che-Mendoza A, Contreras-Perera Y, Pérez-Carrillo S, Puerta-Guardo H, Villegas-Chim J, et al. Pilot trial using mass field-releases of sterile males produced with the incompatible and sterile insect techniques as part of integrated Aedes aegypti control in Mexico. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(4):e0010324. pmid:35471983
- 39. Williams KK, Ramirez S, Lesser CR. Field evaluation of WALS truck-mounted A1 super duty mist sprayer® with VectoBac® WDG against Aedes aegypti (Diptera:Culicidae) populations in Manatee County, Florida. SN Appl Sci. 2022;4(2):50. pmid:35013720
- 40. Forsyth JE, Kempinsky A, Pitchik HO, Alberts CJ, Mutuku FM, Kibe L, et al. Larval source reduction with a purpose: Designing and evaluating a household- and school-based intervention in coastal Kenya. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(4):e0010199. pmid:35363780
- 41. Lenhart A, Castillo CE, Villegas E, Alexander N, Vanlerberghe V, van der Stuyft P, et al. Evaluation of insecticide treated window curtains and water container covers for dengue vector control in a large-scale cluster-randomized trial in Venezuela. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(3):e0010135. pmid:35245284
- 42. Manrique-Saide P, Herrera-Bojórquez J, Villegas-Chim J, Puerta-Guardo H, Ayora-Talavera G, Parra-Cardeña M, et al. Protective effect of house screening against indoor Aedes aegypti in Mérida, Mexico: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Trop Med Int Health. 2021;26(12):1677–88. pmid:34587328
- 43. Beebe NW, Pagendam D, Trewin BJ, Boomer A, Bradford M, Ford A, et al. Releasing incompatible males drives strong suppression across populations of wild and Wolbachia-carrying Aedes aegypti in Australia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(41):e2106828118. pmid:34607949
- 44. de Castro Poncio L, Dos Anjos FA, de Oliveira DA, Rebechi D, de Oliveira RN, Chitolina RF, et al. Novel Sterile Insect Technology Program Results in Suppression of a Field Mosquito Population and Subsequently to Reduced Incidence of Dengue. J Infect Dis. 2021;224(6):1005–14. pmid:33507265
- 45. Manrique-Saide P, Herrera-Bojórquez J, Medina-Barreiro A, Trujillo-Peña E, Villegas-Chim J, Valadez-González N, et al. Insecticide-treated house screening protects against Zika-infected Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(1):e0009005. pmid:33465098
- 46. Juarez JG, Chaves LF, Garcia-Luna SM, Martin E, Badillo-Vargas I, Medeiros MCI, et al. Variable coverage in an Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap intervention impacts efficacy of Aedes aegypti control. J Appl Ecol. 2021;58(10):2075–86. pmid:34690360
- 47. Harris AF, Sanchez Prats J, Nazario Maldonado N, Piovanetti Fiol C, García Pérez M, Ramírez-Vera P, et al. An evaluation of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (AM65-52) treatment for the control of Aedes aegypti using vehicle-mounted WALS® application in a densely populated urban area of Puerto Rico. Pest Manag Sci. 2021;77(4):1981–9. pmid:33314578
- 48. Gato R, Menéndez Z, Prieto E, Argilés R, Rodríguez M, Baldoquín W, et al. Sterile Insect Technique: Successful Suppression of an Aedes aegypti Field Population in Cuba. Insects. 2021;12(5):469. pmid:34070177
- 49. Devine GJ, Vazquez-Prokopec GM, Bibiano-Marín W, Pavia-Ruz N, Che-Mendoza A, Medina-Barreiro A, et al. The entomological impact of passive metofluthrin emanators against indoor Aedes aegypti: A randomized field trial. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(1):e0009036. pmid:33497375
- 50. Holston J, Suazo-Laguna H, Harris E, Coloma J. DengueChat: A Social and Software Platform for Community-based Arbovirus Vector Control. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021;105(6):1521–35. pmid:34634779
- 51. Hustedt JC, Doum D, Keo V, Ly S, Sam B, Chan V, et al. Field Efficacy of Larvivorous Fish and Pyriproxyfen Combined with Community Engagement on Dengue Vectors in Cambodia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021;105(5):1265–76. pmid:34491225
- 52. Gopalan RB, Babu BV, Sugunan AP, Murali A, Ma MS, Balasubramanian R, et al. Community engagement to control dengue and other vector-borne diseases in Alappuzha municipality, Kerala, India. Pathog Glob Health. 2021;115(4):258–66. pmid:33734036
- 53. Pinto R de A, Bauzer LGS da R, Borges DT, Lima JBP. Assessing the efficacy of two new formulations of larvicide pyriproxyfen for the control of Aedes aegypti using dissemination stations in two sites of Rio de Janeiro city. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2020;115:e200271. pmid:33146241
- 54. Hamid NA, Alexander N, Suer R, Ahmed NW, Mudin RN, Omar T, et al. Targeted outdoor residual spraying, autodissemination devices and their combination against Aedes mosquitoes: field implementation in a Malaysian urban setting. Bull Entomol Res. 2020;110(6):700–7. pmid:32410722
- 55. Newton-Sánchez OA, de la Cruz Ruiz M, Torres-Rojo Y, Ochoa-Diaz-López H, Delgado-Enciso I, Hernandez-Suarez CM, et al. Effect of an ecosystem-centered community participation programme on the incidence of dengue. A field randomized, controlled trial. Int J Public Health. 2020;65(3):249–55. pmid:32185417
- 56. Crawford JE, Clarke DW, Criswell V, Desnoyer M, Cornel D, Deegan B, et al. Efficient production of male Wolbachia-infected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes enables large-scale suppression of wild populations. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(4):482–92. pmid:32265562
- 57. Gunathilaka N, Ranathunga T, Hettiarachchi D, Udayanga L, Abeyewickreme W. Field-based evaluation of novaluron EC10 insect growth regulator, a chitin synthesis inhibitor against dengue vector breeding in leaf axils of pineapple plantations in Gampaha District, Sri Lanka. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):228. pmid:32375877
- 58. Ahmad Zaki Z, Che Dom N, Ahmed Alhothily I. Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis Treatment on Aedes Population Using Different Applications at High-Rise Buildings. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2020;5(2):67. pmid:32370071
- 59. Bonnet E, Fournet F, Benmarhnia T, Ouedraogo S, Dabiré R, Ridde V. Impact of a community-based intervention on Aedes aegypti and its spatial distribution in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):61. pmid:32503665
- 60. Bohari R, Jin Hin C, Matusop A, Abdullah MR, Ney TG, Benjamin S, et al. Wide area spray of bacterial larvicide, Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis strain AM65-52, integrated in the national vector control program impacts dengue transmission in an urban township in Sibu district, Sarawak, Malaysia. PLOS ONE. 2020;15: e0230910.
- 61. Garcia KKS, Versiani HS, Araújo TO, Conceição JPA, Obara MT, Ramalho WM, et al. Measuring mosquito control: adult-mosquito catches vs egg-trap data as endpoints of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of mosquito-disseminated pyriproxyfen. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):352. pmid:32665032
- 62. Lenhart A, Morrison AC, Paz-Soldan VA, Forshey BM, Cordova-Lopez JJ, Astete H, et al. The impact of insecticide treated curtains on dengue virus transmission: A cluster randomized trial in Iquitos, Peru. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(4):e0008097.
- 63. Brelsfoard CL, Mains JW, Mulligan S, Cornel A, Holeman J, Kluh S, et al. Aedes aegypti Males as Vehicles for Insecticide Delivery. Insects. 2019;10(8):230. pmid:31374806
- 64. Kittayapong P, Ninphanomchai S, Limohpasmanee W, Chansang C, Chansang U, Mongkalangoon P. Combined sterile insect technique and incompatible insect technique: The first proof-of-concept to suppress Aedes aegypti vector populations in semi-rural settings in Thailand. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(10):e0007771. pmid:31658265
- 65. Barrera R, Amador M, Munoz J, Acevedo V. Integrated vector control of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes around target houses. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11(1):88. pmid:29422087
- 66. Oo SZM, Thaung S, Maung YNM, Aye KM, Aung ZZ, Thu HM, et al. Effectiveness of a novel long-lasting pyriproxyfen larvicide (SumiLarv®2MR) against Aedes mosquitoes in schools in Yangon, Myanmar. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11(1):16. pmid:29306333
- 67. Ponlawat A, Harwood JF, Putnam JL, Nitatsukprasert C, Pongsiri A, Kijchalao U, et al. Field Evaluation of Indoor Thermal Fog and Ultra-Low Volume Applications For Control of Aedes aegypti in Thailand. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2017;33(2):116–27. pmid:28590217
- 68. Abad-Franch F, Zamora-Perea E, Luz SLB. Mosquito-Disseminated Insecticide for Citywide Vector Control and Its Potential to Block Arbovirus Epidemics: Entomological Observations and Modeling Results from Amazonian Brazil. PLoS Med. 2017;14(1):e1002213. pmid:28095414
- 69. Garziera L, Pedrosa MC, de Souza FA, Gómez M, Moreira MB, Virginio JF, et al. Effect of interruption of over-flooding releases of transgenic mosquitoes over wild population ofAedes aegypti: two case studies in Brazil. Entomologia Exp Applicata. 2017;164(3):327–39.
- 70. Toledo ME, Vanlerberghe V, Rosales JP, Mirabal M, Cabrera P, Fonseca V, et al. The additional benefit of residual spraying and insecticide-treated curtains for dengue control over current best practice in Cuba: Evaluation of disease incidence in a cluster randomized trial in a low burden setting with intensive routine control. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(11):e0006031. pmid:29117180
- 71. Nagpal BN, Gupta SK, Shamim A, Vikram K, Srivastava A, Tuli NR, et al. Control of Aedes aegypti Breeding: A Novel Intervention for Prevention and Control of Dengue in an Endemic Zone of Delhi, India. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0166768. pmid:27918577
- 72. Setha T, Chantha N, Benjamin S, Socheat D. Bacterial Larvicide, Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis Strain AM 65-52 Water Dispersible Granule Formulation Impacts Both Dengue Vector, Aedes aegypti (L.) Population Density and Disease Transmission in Cambodia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(9):e0004973. pmid:27627758
- 73. Carvalho DO, McKemey AR, Garziera L, Lacroix R, Donnelly CA, Alphey L, et al. Suppression of a Field Population of Aedes aegypti in Brazil by Sustained Release of Transgenic Male Mosquitoes. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(7):e0003864. pmid:26135160
- 74. Toledo ME, Vanlerberghe V, Lambert I, Montada D, Baly A, Van der Stuyft P. No effect of insecticide treated curtain deployment on aedes infestation in a cluster randomized trial in a setting of low dengue transmission in Guantanamo, Cuba. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119373. pmid:25794192
- 75. Quintero J, García-Betancourt T, Cortés S, García D, Alcalá L, González-Uribe C, et al. Effectiveness and feasibility of long-lasting insecticide-treated curtains and water container covers for dengue vector control in Colombia: a cluster randomised trial. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015;109(2):116–25. pmid:25604762
- 76. Caprara A, Lima JWDO, Peixoto ACR, Motta CMV, Nobre JMS, Sommerfeld J, et al. Entomological impact and social participation in dengue control: a cluster randomized trial in Fortaleza, Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015;109(2):99–105. pmid:25604760
- 77. Mitchell-Foster K, Ayala EB, Breilh J, Spiegel J, Wilches AA, Leon TO, et al. Integrating participatory community mobilization processes to improve dengue prevention: an eco-bio-social scaling up of local success in Machala, Ecuador. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015;109(2):126–33. pmid:25604763
- 78. Barrera R, Amador M, Acevedo V, Caban B, Felix G, Mackay AJ. Use of the CDC autocidal gravid ovitrap to control and prevent outbreaks of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2014;51(1):145–54. pmid:24605464
- 79. Tsunoda T, Kawada H, Huynh TTT, Luu LL, Le SH, Tran HN, et al. Field trial on a novel control method for the dengue vector, Aedes aegypti by the systematic use of Olyset® Net and pyriproxyfen in Southern Vietnam. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:6. pmid:23312018
- 80. Lenhart A, Trongtokit Y, Alexander N, Apiwathnasorn C, Satimai W, Vanlerberghe V, et al. A cluster-randomized trial of insecticide-treated curtains for dengue vector control in Thailand. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88(2):254–9. pmid:23166195
- 81. Castro M, Sánchez L, Pérez D, Carbonell N, Lefèvre P, Vanlerberghe V, et al. A community empowerment strategy embedded in a routine dengue vector control programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2012;106(5):315–21. pmid:22465423
- 82. Arunachalam N, Tyagi BK, Samuel M, Krishnamoorthi R, Manavalan R, Tewari SC, et al. Community-based control of Aedes aegypti by adoption of eco-health methods in Chennai City, India. Pathog Glob Health. 2012;106(8):488–96. pmid:23318241
- 83. Martínez-Ibarra JA, Nogueda-Torres B, Meda-Lara RM, Montañez-Valdez OD, Rocha-Chávez G. Combining two teaching techniques for young children on Aedes aegypti control: effects on entomological indices in western Mexico. J Vector Ecol. 2012;37(1):241–4. pmid:22548559
- 84. Abeyewickreme W, Wickremasinghe AR, Karunatilake K, Sommerfeld J, Axel K. Community mobilization and household level waste management for dengue vector control in Gampaha district of Sri Lanka; an intervention study. Pathog Glob Health. 2012;106(8):479–87. pmid:23318240
- 85. Kittayapong P, Thongyuan S, Olanratmanee P, Aumchareoun W, Koyadun S, Kittayapong R, et al. Application of eco-friendly tools and eco-bio-social strategies to control dengue vectors in urban and peri-urban settings in Thailand. Pathog Glob Health. 2012;106(8):446–54. pmid:23318236
- 86. Rizzo N, Gramajo R, Escobar MC, Arana B, Kroeger A, Manrique-Saide P, et al. Dengue vector management using insecticide treated materials and targeted interventions on productive breeding-sites in Guatemala. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:931. pmid:23110515
- 87. Marcombe S, Darriet F, Tolosa M, Agnew P, Duchon S, Etienne M, et al. Pyrethroid resistance reduces the efficacy of space sprays for dengue control on the island of Martinique (Caribbean). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(6):e1202. pmid:21713017
- 88.
ICMJE | Recommendations | Author Responsibilities—Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest. [cited 8 Oct 2025]. Available: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html
- 89. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2):MR000033. pmid:28207928
- 90. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289(4):454–65. pmid:12533125
- 91. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326(7400):1167–70. pmid:12775614
- 92. Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29(2):109–13. pmid:17919992
- 93. Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics. 2011;90(3):891–904.
- 94. Hamer GL, Fimbres-Macias JP, Juarez JG, Downs CH, Carbajal E, Melo M, et al. Development of an operational trap for collection, killing, and preservation of triatomines (Hemiptera: Reduviidae): the kissing bug kill trap. J Med Entomol. 2024;61(6):1322–32. pmid:39024462
- 95. Ruff K. Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: what progress has been made?. Environ Health. 2015;14:45. pmid:26024916
- 96.
ICMJE | Recommendations | Author Responsibilities—Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest. [cited 22 Sept 2025]. Available: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html
- 97.
Committee on Publication Ethics. Code of conduct. In: COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics [Internet]. 2017 [cited 22 Sept 2025]. Available: https://publicationethics.org/membership/code-of-conduct