Effect of a spatial repellent on malaria incidence in an area of western Kenya characterised by high malaria transmission, insecticide resistance, and universal coverage of insecticide treated nets (part of the AEGIS Consortium): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Effect of a spatial repellent on malaria incidence in an area of western Kenya characterised by high malaria transmission, insecticide resistance, and universal coverage of insecticide treated nets (part of the AEGIS Consortium): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial.
Item: Effect of a spatial repellent on malaria incidence in an area of western Kenya characterised by high malaria transmission, insecticide resistance, and universal coverage of insecticide treated nets (part of the AEGIS Consortium): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial.
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Ochomo EO, Gimnig JE, Awori Q, Abong'o B, Oria P, Ashitiba NK, Polo B, Moshi V, Otanga H, Adung'o F, Ouma EA, Outa S, Ramaita E, Levine R, Odongo W, Harvey SA, Monroe A, Hudson A, Sandberg B, Hendrickson J, Zhao X, Zhou R, Liu F, Achee NL, Grieco JP

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Effect of a spatial repellent on malaria incidence in an area of western Kenya characterised by high malaria transmission, insecticide resistance, and universal coverage of insecticide treated nets (part of the AEGIS Consortium): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 16, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 32 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed. These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced3 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 gaps1

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/code availability incompleteAssessed

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.

This is a well-conducted cluster-randomized controlled trial with rigorous design, clear reporting, and appropriate ethical approvals. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement, which lacks a concrete repository or access mechanism.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional; no divergence. The statistics verification covered only 2 tests (limited coverage), and the citation check found no retracted or missing references. The copyedit pass flagged minor issues including a missing figure reference and inconsistent notation.

6 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks.

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior evidence on spatial repellents, including trials in Peru, China, and Indonesia, and identifies the gap in evidence for Africa. The rationale linking the premise to the study objectives is explicit. Limitations of prior research (e.g., inconclusive outcomes, lack of African trials) are acknowledged and addressed by the study design.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited, a logical rationale, and addresses limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Evidence of an epidemiological effect of spatial repellents against vector-borne disease is limited to a single trial against dengue fever in Peru (protective effect of 34·1%) and another trial against malaria in China (protective effect of 77% by use of metofluthrin coils alone). A third trial in Indonesia indicated a reduction in malaria infection incidence by use of spatial repellents (protective effect of 27·7%), although not significant.”