Summary of findings 3. Spatial repellents compared to placebo or no treatment for malaria prevention.
| Spatial repellents compared to placebo or no treatment for malaria prevention | ||||||
| Patient or population: malaria prevention Setting: malaria‐endemic regions Intervention: spatial repellents Comparison: placebo or no treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with placebo or no treatment | Risk with Spatial repellents | |||||
| Parasitaemia Plasmodium spp. | 10 per 1000 |
2 per 1000 (0 to 18) |
RR 0.24 (0.03 to 1.72) |
6683 (2 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2,3 Due to risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency |
We do not know if spatial repellents protect against malaria. We have very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: Hill 2014 was not blinded. 2Downgraded by 1 for imprecision: Hill 2014 was underpowered and reported very few events (1/3349 in the intervention and 11/3270 in the control), and the CIs ranged from no effect to large benefits. Both studies were underpowered. 3Downgraded by 1 for inconsistency: there is considerable unexplained heterogeneity between trials (I² statistic = 46%)