Skip to main content

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

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 0.28 0.18 0.06 0.48 0.001
ILT 1.44 Ref    
An. funestus MET 0.12 0.14 0.03 0.54 0.005
ILT 0.88 Ref    
An. coustani MET 0.08 2.00 0.18 22.06 0.57
ILT 0.04 Ref    
FTT and ILT An. arabiensis FTT 2.60 1.87 0.94 3.72 0.07
ILT 1.48 Ref    
An. funestus FTT 2.16 1.20 0.57 2.53 0.64
ILT 1.80 Ref    
An. coustani FTT 0.24 3.00 0.58 15.39 0.19
ILT 0.08 Ref    
HDT and ILT An. arabiensis HDT 0.68 0.50 0.23 1.08 0.08
ILT 1.48 Ref    
An. funestus HDT 0.36 0.28 0.09 0.80 0.02
ILT 1.36 Ref    
An. coustani HDT 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inf 1.00
ILT 0.16 Ref    
HLC and ILT An. arabiensis HLC 0.52 0.45 0.17 1.20 0.11
ILT 1.08 Ref    
An. funestus HLC 0.52 0.48 0.15 1.52 0.21
ILT 1.08 Ref    
An. coustani HLC 0.32 4 0.80 20.10 0.09
ILT 0.08 Ref    
OLT and ILT An. arabiensis OLT 0.92 0.74 0.30 1.84 0.52
ILT 1.20 Ref    
An. funestus OLT 0.24 0.21 0.08 0.57 0.002
ILT 1.16 Ref    
An. coustani OLT 0.92 5.75 1.79 18.46 0.003
ILT 0.16 Ref    
  1. The models included terms for collection methods and an interaction term. The risk ratios (RR) were generated by exponentiating the model coefficients
Back to article page

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us