Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of mean numbers of An. funestus, An. arabiensis and An. coustani collected outdoors and indoors between each of the outdoor trapping methods (MET, FTT, HDT, OLT, HLC) and ILT in Kakola Ombaka village

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

Comparison Anopheles species Collection method Mean Risk ratio Lower CL Upper CL P-values
MET and ILT An. arabiensis MET 8.40 0.97 0.42 2.29 0.96
ILT 13.08 Ref    
An. funestus MET 2.68 0.51 0.24 1.11 0.09
ILT 5.28 Ref    
An. coustani MET 9.56 1.24 0.52 2.92 0.63
ILT 8.16 Ref    
FTT and ILT An. arabiensis FTT 13.64 1.36 0.73 2.56 0.33
ILT 10.00 Ref    
An. funestus FTT 6.88 0.93 0.48 1.77 0.81
ILT 7.96 Ref    
An. coustani FTT 7.12 0.79 0.32 1.91 0.59
ILT 7.52 Ref    
HDT and ILT An. arabiensis HDT 10.24 1.25 0.65 2.40 0.50
ILT 8.44 Ref    
An. funestus HDT 1.76 0.29 0.13 0.64 0.002
ILT 6.24 Ref    
An. coustani HDT 1.80 0.21 0.10 0.49  < 0.001
ILT 7.68 Ref    
HLC and ILT An. arabiensis HLC 1.80 0.26 0.11 0.59 0.001
ILT 6.92 Ref    
An. funestus HLC 1.48 0.25 0.09 0.65 0.005
ILT 5.92 Ref    
An. coustani HLC 10.52 1.24 0.54 2.90 0.60
ILT 7.16 Ref    
OLT and ILT An. arabiensis OLT 3.56 0.42 0.20 0.89 0.03
ILT 8.60 Ref   1 1
An. funestus OLT 1.20 0.21 0.09 0.81  < 0.001
ILT 5.76 Ref    
An. coustani OLT 23.00 3.00 1.67 5.39  < 0.001
ILT 7.64 Ref    
  1. The models included terms for collection methods and an interaction term. The risk ratios (RR) were generated by exponentiating the model coefficients