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

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

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
	An. arabiensis	ILT	13.08	Ref
	An. funestus	MET	2.68	0.51	0.24	1.11	0.09
	An. funestus	ILT	5.28	Ref
	An. coustani	MET	9.56	1.24	0.52	2.92	0.63
	An. coustani	ILT	8.16	Ref
FTT and ILT	An. arabiensis	FTT	13.64	1.36	0.73	2.56	0.33
	An. arabiensis	ILT	10.00	Ref
	An. funestus	FTT	6.88	0.93	0.48	1.77	0.81
	An. funestus	ILT	7.96	Ref
	An. coustani	FTT	7.12	0.79	0.32	1.91	0.59
	An. coustani	ILT	7.52	Ref
HDT and ILT	An. arabiensis	HDT	10.24	1.25	0.65	2.40	0.50
	An. arabiensis	ILT	8.44	Ref
	An. funestus	HDT	1.76	0.29	0.13	0.64	0.002
	An. funestus	ILT	6.24	Ref
	An. coustani	HDT	1.80	0.21	0.10	0.49	< 0.001
	An. coustani	ILT	7.68	Ref
HLC and ILT	An. arabiensis	HLC	1.80	0.26	0.11	0.59	0.001
	An. arabiensis	ILT	6.92	Ref
	An. funestus	HLC	1.48	0.25	0.09	0.65	0.005
	An. funestus	ILT	5.92	Ref
	An. coustani	HLC	10.52	1.24	0.54	2.90	0.60
	An. coustani	ILT	7.16	Ref
OLT and ILT	An. arabiensis	OLT	3.56	0.42	0.20	0.89	0.03
	An. arabiensis	ILT	8.60	Ref		1	1
	An. funestus	OLT	1.20	0.21	0.09	0.81	< 0.001
	An. funestus	ILT	5.76	Ref
	An. coustani	OLT	23.00	3.00	1.67	5.39	< 0.001
	An. coustani	ILT	7.64	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