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

Table 4 Comparison of mean numbers of An. funestus, An. arabiensis and An. coustani collected outdoors and indoor between each of the outdoor trapping methods (MET, FTT, HDT, OLT, HLC) and ILT in Masogo village

Comparison	Anopheles species	Collection method	Mean	Risk ratio	Lower CL	Upper CL	P-values
MET and ILT	An. arabiensis	MET	0.28	0.18	0.06	0.48	0.001
	An. arabiensis	ILT	1.44	Ref
	An. funestus	MET	0.12	0.14	0.03	0.54	0.005
	An. funestus	ILT	0.88	Ref
	An. coustani	MET	0.08	2.00	0.18	22.06	0.57
	An. coustani	ILT	0.04	Ref
FTT and ILT	An. arabiensis	FTT	2.60	1.87	0.94	3.72	0.07
	An. arabiensis	ILT	1.48	Ref
	An. funestus	FTT	2.16	1.20	0.57	2.53	0.64
	An. funestus	ILT	1.80	Ref
	An. coustani	FTT	0.24	3.00	0.58	15.39	0.19
	An. coustani	ILT	0.08	Ref
HDT and ILT	An. arabiensis	HDT	0.68	0.50	0.23	1.08	0.08
	An. arabiensis	ILT	1.48	Ref
	An. funestus	HDT	0.36	0.28	0.09	0.80	0.02
	An. funestus	ILT	1.36	Ref
	An. coustani	HDT	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inf	1.00
	An. coustani	ILT	0.16	Ref
HLC and ILT	An. arabiensis	HLC	0.52	0.45	0.17	1.20	0.11
	An. arabiensis	ILT	1.08	Ref
	An. funestus	HLC	0.52	0.48	0.15	1.52	0.21
	An. funestus	ILT	1.08	Ref
	An. coustani	HLC	0.32	4	0.80	20.10	0.09
	An. coustani	ILT	0.08	Ref
OLT and ILT	An. arabiensis	OLT	0.92	0.74	0.30	1.84	0.52
	An. arabiensis	ILT	1.20	Ref
	An. funestus	OLT	0.24	0.21	0.08	0.57	0.002
	An. funestus	ILT	1.16	Ref
	An. coustani	OLT	0.92	5.75	1.79	18.46	0.003
	An. coustani	ILT	0.16	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