Alphonce A. Assenga1*
Ludovic P. Ahoua Alou2
Soromane Camara2Alphonsine A. Koffi2Raphael N’Guessan2,3Dismas S. Kamande1Safina Ngonyani1Ummi A. Kibondo1
Olukayode G. Odufuwa1Watson S. Ntabaliba1Ruth G. Lekundayo1Faraji Abilah1Edith P. Madumla1Joseph B. Muganga1
Jason Moore1,4,5
Sarah J. Moore1,4,5,6- 1Vector Control Product Testing Unit (VCPTU), Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences, Ifakara Health Institute, Bagamoyo, Tanzania
- 2Vector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC), Institut Pierre Richet/Institut National de Santé Publique, Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire
- 3Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- 4Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Allschwil, Switzerland
- 5University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- 6The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST), Tengeru, Tanzania
by Assenga AA, Ahoua Alou LP, Camara S, Koffi AA, N’Guessan R, Kamande DS, Ngonyani S, Kibondo UA, Odufuwa OG, Ntabaliba WS, Lekundayo RG, Abilah F, Madumla EP, Muganga JB, Moore J and Moore SJ (2025). Front. Malar. 3:1540884. doi: 10.3389/fmala.2025.1540884
In the published article, there was an error in Table 1 as published. The mistake was in the description of the active ingredients of Interceptor® G2 which was incorrectly described as containing Alpha cypermethrin 4.8g/kg (200 mg/m2) and Chlorfenapyr 2.4 g/kg (100 mg/m2). The corrected Table 1 and its caption appear below.
Table 1. Description of net products used in the experiment.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Keywords: Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles coluzzii, Anopheles arabiensis, non-inferiority, chlorfenapyr, bifenthrin, PRONet Duo, Interceptor® G2
Citation: Assenga AA, Ahoua Alou LP, Camara S, Koffi AA, N’Guessan R, Kamande DS, Ngonyani S, Kibondo UA, Odufuwa OG, Ntabaliba WS, Lekundayo RG, Abilah F, Madumla EP, Muganga JB, Moore J and Moore SJ (2025) Corrigendum: PRONet Duo insecticide-treated net incorporated with chlorfenapyr and bifenthrin is superior to Interceptor® G2 nets against pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae sensu lato: a randomized experimental hut trial in Côte d’Ivoire and Tanzania using non-inferiority design. Front. Malar. 3:1612068. doi: 10.3389/fmala.2025.1612068
Received: 15 April 2025; Accepted: 30 April 2025;
Published: 16 May 2025.
Edited and Reviewed by:
Louisa Alexandra Messenger, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United StatesCopyright © 2025 Assenga, Ahoua Alou, Camara, Koffi, N’Guessan, Kamande, Ngonyani, Kibondo, Odufuwa, Ntabaliba, Lekundayo, Abilah, Madumla, Muganga, Moore and Moore. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Alphonce A. Assenga, YWFzc2VuZ2FAaWhpLm9yLnR6