The MTego trap: a potential tool for monitoring malaria and arbovirus vectors

Parasites & Vectors

Table 1 Relative trapping efficacy of the MTego traps, Biogents (BG) Pro (BGP) trap and human landing catch (HLC) method in the no-choice test

Mosquito species	Trapping method	Total catch	Mean % (CI)	OR (95% CI)
Anopheles gambiae	BGP-BGL	232	29.0 (20.7–37.4)	Ref.
	MT-PM6	171	21.4 (14.2–28.9)	0.66 (0.52–0.83)
	MT-BGL	244	30.5 (21.9–39.1)	1.07 (0.86–1.34)†
	HLC	523	65.4 (58.5–72.2)	4.88 (3.94–6.07)
Anopheles arabiensis	BGP-BGL	85	10.6 (8.4–12.9)	Ref.
	MT-PM6	18	2.3 (0.7–3.8)	0.19 (0.11–0.32)
	MT-BGL	20	2.5 (1.3–3.7)	0.21 (0.13–0.35)
	HLC	540	67.0 (59.1–75.9)	19.74 (14.90–26.14)
Anopheles funestus	BGP-BGL	265	33.1 (27.7–38.3)	Ref.
	MT-PM6	193	24.1 (19.1–29.1)	0.64 (0.52–0.80)
	MT-BGL	253	31.6 (27.8–35.4)	0.93 (0.76–1.15)†
	HLC	763	95.4 (91.7–99.1)	41.84 (29.14–60.08)
Aedes aegypti	BGP-BGL	245	30.6 (21.0–40.2)	Ref.
	MT-PM6	260	32.5 (23.1–41.9)	1.12 (0.90–1.40)†
	MT-BGL	93	11.6 (7.3–15.91)	0.28 (0.21–0.36)
	HLC	723	90.4 (84.7–96.0)	33.47 (24.29–46.11)
Culex quinquefasciatus	BGP-BGL	696	87.0 (78.8–95.2)	Ref.
	MT-PM6	458	57.3 (49.3–65.2)	0.18 (0.14–0.24)
	MT-BGL	533	66.6 (60.6–72.6)	0.28 (0.22–0.36)
	HLC	728	91.0 (87.2–94.8)	1.52 (1.10–2.10)*

The odds ratios (OR) were derived from multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression with a binomial distribution and logit function. Trap type, chamber and position were adjusted for fixed effects, and day was a random effect
CI Confidence interval, BGP-BGL BGP trap baited with BG-Lure, MT-PM6 MTego trap baited with PM6, MT-BGL MTego trap baited with BG-Lure, HLC human landing catch, Ref. reference
† P > 0.32, * P = 0.011; all other tests, P < 0.0001

ISSN: 1756-3305