@article{fdi:010082179,
  title = {{A}ssessment of mosquito collection methods for dengue surveillance},
  author = {{G}arjito, {T}. {A}. and {S}usanti, {L}. and {M}ujiyono, {M}. and {P}rihatin, {M}. {T}. and {S}usilo, {D}. and {N}ugroho, {S}. {S}. and {M}ujiyanto, {M}. and {W}igati, {R}. {A}. and {S}atoto, {T}. {B}. {T}. and {M}anguin, {S}ylvie and {G}avotte, {L}. and {F}rutos, {R}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{S}everal methods exist to collect and assess the abundance of dengue vector mosquitoes, i.e., morning adult collection, pupal collection, ovitraps, human landing, and larval collection. {S}everal of these methods are officially implemented to monitor mosquito density and make decisions on treatments for dengue control. {T}his monitoring is also constrained by the need to conduct this assessment on a "one point/one day" process, meaning that once the threshold of 100 households is reached, the assessment is made, and the collectors teams move to another place, thus preventing the use of long-term sampling methods. {T}his diversity of methods might be a source of variability and lack of statistical significance. {T}here is also a lack of published data regarding the efficacy of these methods. {F}urthermore, the {S}tegomyia indices are shown to be not reliable for assessing the risk of dengue outbreaks. {A} mosquito survey was, thus, conducted in 39 locations corresponding to 15 dengue endemic provinces in {I}ndonesia by using the different adult and larval collection methods recommended nationwide. {A} total of 44,675 mosquitoes were collected. {T}he single larva method was the most efficient. {O}ut of a total of 89 dengue-positive pools, the most frequently encountered virus was {DENV}2, which made up half of the positive samples, followed by {DENV}3 and {DENV}1, respectively. {F}actor analysis of mixed data showed that no correlation could be found between any methods and the presence of dengue virus in mosquitoes. {M}oreover, no correlation could be found between any methods and the incidence of dengue. {T}here was no consistency in the efficacy of a given method from one site to another. {T}here was no correlation between any of the parameters considered, i.e., method, incidence of dengue, location, and the presence of dengue virus in mosquitoes.},
  keywords = {{A}edes aegypti ; {A}edes albopictus ; dengue ; collection methods ; dengue ; incidence ; {I}ndonesia ; {INDONESIE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{F}rontiers in {M}edicine},
  volume = {8},
  numero = {},
  pages = {685926 [8 ]},
  year = {2021},
  DOI = {10.3389/fmed.2021.685926},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010082179},
}