The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Correspondence
PreviousPrevious
Volume 347:1719-1721 November 21, 2002 Number 21
NextNext

Insect Repellents and Mosquito Bites

Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-Related Article
by Pollack, R. J.
-Related Article
by Fradin, M. S.
-PubMed Citation
To the Editor: Fradin and Day's cage study (July 4 issue)1 may be misleading. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the only meaningful way to measure the efficacy of an insect repellent is to test it under realistic conditions. The EPA's FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) Scientific Advisory Panel, on which Dr. Day served, concluded that cage studies "are not a valid substitute for repellent field studies" and recommended that "only field studies be used to establish efficacy."2 The DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide, now called N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide) Issues Task Force also contends that "laboratory-derived data . . . [Full Text of this Article]



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.