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

Parasites & Vectors

Table 2 Influence of sampling method on the proportion of fed An. quadriannulatus and An. funestus which were captured ^a

Sampling method	Percentage (Proportion fed)	OR^b[95% C.I]	P value
Anopheles quadriannulatus
HLC indoor	24.4 (99/405)	1.00^c	NA^d
HLC outdoor	29.3 (71/242)	1.900 [1.253, 2.881]	0.003
CDC light trap	12.9 (101/784)	0.417 [0.292, 0.596]	< 0.001
Ifakara tent trap – C	28.6 (6/21)	1.251 [0.430, 3.642]	0.682
Window exit traps	(0/1)	NE^e	NE^e
Resting boxes indoor	(0/0)	NE^e	NE^e
Resting boxes outdoor	100 (2/2)	NE^e	NE^e
Anopheles funestus
HLC indoor	34.8 (608/1749)	1.00^c	NA^d
HLC outdoor	37.2 (608/1635)	1.188 [1.017, 1.387]	0.030
CDC light trap	20.6 (541/2630)	0.543 [0.467, 0.633]	< 0.001
Ifakara tent trap – C	14.1 (199/1410)	0.261 [0.215, 0.317]	< 0.001
Window exit trap	38.0 (27/71)	1.086 [0.643, 1.835]	0.758
Resting boxes indoor	73.7 (28/38)	4.486 [2.059, 9.776]	< 0.001
Resting boxes outdoor	72.7 (80/110)	5.899 [3.688, 9.434]	< 0.001

^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. The proportions of fed An. quadriannulatus and An. funestus were not affected by village, season and treatment (P > 0.05).
^b Odds Ratio represents the relative probability of sampled mosquitoes which had fed compared to the reference indoor HLC method.
^c Reference method.
^d Not applicable.
^e Not estimable due to small or no numbers observed or no mosquito catches.

ISSN: 1756-3305