Comparison of four outdoor mosquito trapping methods as potential replacements for human landing catches in western Kenya

Table 2 Comparison of mean numbers of An. funestus, An. arabiensis and An. coustani collected outdoors by MET, FTT, HDT, OLT and HLC in Kakola Ombaka and Masogo villages over the study period

Category	Collection Method	Kakola Ombaka					Masogo
Category	Collection Method	Mean	Risk ratio	Lower CL	Upper CL	P-value	Mean	Risk ratio	Lower CL	Upper CL	P-value
An. funestus	MET	2.68	1.98	0.88	4.46	0.1	0.12	0.24	0.05	1.03	0.05
	FTT	6.88	5.59	2.49	12.55	< 0.001	2.16	4.38	1.62	11.8	0.004
	HDT	1.76	1.38	0.60	3.18	0.44	0.36	0.66	0.21	2.09	0.48
	OLT	1.20	0.88	0.37	2.11	0.78	0.24	0.45	0.13	1.57	0.21
	HLC	1.48	Ref				0.52	Ref
An. arabiensis	MET	8.40	4.67	2.44	8.93	< 0.001	0.28	0.59	0.19	1.87	0.37
	FTT	13.64	7.58	3.98	14.42	< 0.001	2.26	5.37	2.17	13.24	< 0.001
	HDT	10.24	5.69	2.98	10.86	< 0.001	0.68	1.32	0.49	3.59	0.58
	OLT	3.56	1.98	1.01	3.86	0.05	0.92	1.83	0.70	4.79	0.22
	HLC	1.80	Ref				0.52	Ref
An. coustani	MET	9.56	1.11	0.61	2.03	0.74	0.08	0.00	0.00	Inf	1.00
	FTT	7.12	0.66	0.35	1.23	0.19	0.24	7.50	0.24	2.37	0.62
	HDT	1.80	0.18	0.09	0.37	< 0.001	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inf	1.00
	OLT	23.00	3.03	1.65	5.56	< 0.001	0.92	2.88	1.15	7.22	0.02
	HLC	10.52	Ref				0.32	Ref

The models included terms for collection methods and an interaction term. The risk ratios (RR) were generated by exponentiating the model coefficients

ISSN: 1756-3305