Skip to main content

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

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

Category Collection Method Kakola Ombaka Masogo
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    
  1. The models included terms for collection methods and an interaction term. The risk ratios (RR) were generated by exponentiating the model coefficients