Skip to main content

Table 1 Number of mosquitoes caught by different sampling methods for 240 trap nights each and their relative rates in reference to the indoor human landing catches, as determined by fitting generalized linear mixed models a

From: Evaluation of alternative mosquito sampling methods for malaria vectors in Lowland South - East Zambia

Sampling method

Catchb

Relative sensitivityc

 

Total

Mean [95% CI]

RR [95% CI]

P value

Anopheles quadriannulatus

    

HLC indoor

405

1.687 [1.531, 1.860]

1.00d

NAe

HLC outdoor

242

1.004 [0.885, 1.139]

0.597 [0.509, 0.700]

< 0.001

CDC light trap

784

3.267 [3.046, 3.504]

1.873 [1.653, 2.122]

0.997

Ifakara tent trap – C

21

0.088 [0.057, 0.134]

0.050 [0.032, 0.078]

< 0.001

Window exit trap

1

0.004 [0.001, 0.030]

0.002 [0.000, 0.015]

< 0.001

Resting boxes indoor

0

NEf

NEf

NEf

Resting boxes outdoor

2

0.008 [0.002, 0.033]

0.004 [0.001, 0.016]

< 0.001

Anopheles funestus

    

HLC indoor

1749

7.287 [6.954, 7.637]

1.00d

NAe

HLC outdoor

1635

6.784 [6.463, 7.121]

0.928 [0.868, 0.993]

< 0.001

CDC light trap

2630

10.958 [10.547, 11.385]

1.532 [1.441, 1.628]

< 0.001

Ifakara tent trap – C

1410

5.875 [5.576, 6.190]

0.821 [0.765, 0.881]

< 0.001

Window exit trap

71

0.296 [0.234, 0.373]

0.040 [0.032, 0.051]

< 0.001

Resting boxes indoor

38

0.158 [0.115, 0.218]

0.022 [0.016, 0.030]

< 0.001

Resting boxes outdoor

110

0.458 [0.380, 0.553]

0.063 [0.052, 0.076]

< 0.001

Other anophelines

    

HLC indoor

1661

8.046 [7.695, 8.413]

1.00d

NAe

HLC outdoor

2064

9.685 [9.300, 10.086]

1.207 [1.137, 1.287]

< 0.001

CDC light trap

661

2.754 [2.552, 2.972]

0.337 [0.308, 0.369]

< 0.001

Ifakara tent trap – C

28

0.117 [0.081, 0.169]

0.014 [0.010, 0.021]

< 0.001

Window exit trap

7

0.029 [0.014, 0.061]

0.003 [0.002, 0.007]

< 0.001

Resting boxes indoor

4

0.017 [0.006, 0.044]

0.002 [0.001, 0.005]

< 0.001

Resting boxes outdoor

20

0.083 [0.054, 0.129]

0.010 [0.006, 0.015]

< 0.001

Culicine species

    

HLC indoor

1971

8.296 [7.939, 8.668]

1.00d

NAe

HLC outdoor

1921

8.033 [7.683, 8.399]

0.971 [0.912, 1.0349]

0.349

CDC light trap

1782

7.425 [7.088, 7.778]

0.871 [0.817, 0.930]

< 0.001

Ifakara tent trap – C

369

1.538 [1.388, 1.703]

0.180 [0.161, 0.202]

< 0.001

Window exit trap

54

0.225 [0.172, 0.294]

0.025 [0.019, 0.033]

< 0.001

Resting boxes indoor

6

0.025 [0.011, 0.056]

0.003 [0.001, 0.006]

< 0.001

Resting boxes outdoor

18

0.075 [0.047, 0.119]

0.008 [0.005, 0.013]

< 0.001

  1. a As described in the methods section, village, season and treatment were all included as fixed effects while household and date were included as random effects. In sampling An. quadriannulatus, both village and treatment did not significantly affect (P = 0.894 and 0.0845 respectively), the catches of mosquitoes by all methods. The catches of An. funestus were also significantly affected by village (P = 0.004) and treatment (p = 0.011). The catches of other anophelines and culicines were not significantly affected by village (P = 0.268 and 0.265) and treatment (P = 0.717 and 0.721) respectively. The catches of all the mosquito taxa were significantly affected by season (P < 0.001).
  2. b Mean and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by fitting generalised linear mixed models as described above, except that only method, date and house were included in a model without intercept.
  3. c Sensitivity of the sampling method catch with reference to HLC placed indoors (RR indicate Relative Rate).
  4. d Reference method.
  5. e Not applicable.
  6. f Not estimable due to no mosquito catch.
Back to article page

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us