Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.
Item: Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.
Rating: 86
Author: Αlpha¹

Dean NE, Crisp AM, Che-Mendoza A, Kirstein OD, Barrera-Fuentes GA, Earnest JT, Puerta-Guardo HN, Collins MH, Pavia-Ruz N, Ayora-Talavera G, González-Olvera G, Medina-Barreiro A, Bibiano-Marín W, Jabbarzadeh S, Halloran ME, Longini IM Jr, Lenhart A, Waller LA, Correa-Morales F, Palacio-Vargas J, Gomez-Dantes H, Manrique-Saide P, Vazquez-Prokopec GM

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 2.25★ (Weak), 0 critical, 6 high issues for “Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 10, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

2.25 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×4−2★
ReportingData & code availability not met−0.5★
ReportingEthical approvals partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced5 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps2

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data and code not sharedAssessed
Ethics/consent reporting incompleteAssessed

Copyediting1

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

Wording or formatting errors that need correctingAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The paper is a well-conducted cluster-RCT with strong design, transparent reporting of null results, and appropriate statistical methods. Its most significant rigor gaps are the absence of a data-availability statement and a generic IRB approval statement lacking specific body names and protocol numbers. Several internal inconsistencies in registration identifiers and case counts, though minor, should be corrected via an erratum.

Two independent rigor evaluations (same model, independently sampled) were synthesized; the copyedit pass and verification components were also incorporated. The statistics verification covered only 3 reported tests; remaining analyses are unverified. The study was assessed as published; no re-analysis was performed.

6 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

4 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions6 pass · 1 warn · 1 fail

Prior work is cited extensively (burden data, failures of classic vector control, Australian observational TIRS evidence, mathematical models predicting TIRS timing), and the rationale for a randomized efficacy trial is explicit. Limitations of prior work (observational confounding, reactive vs. preventive deployment) are acknowledged in the discussion, where the authors explicitly note the trial did not replicate the Australian observational estimate.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper clearly establishes the public-health burden of Aedes-borne disease, the failure of classic control tools, and the rationale for randomized evaluation of TIRS.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“Classic control approaches against the primary ABD vector, Aedes aegypti (e.g., larval control, source reduction and space spraying), have not succeeded in reducing disease burden.”