Table 2 Relative trapping efficacy of the MTego trap compared to the BGP trap in the dual-choice test
From: The MTego trap: a potential tool for monitoring malaria and arbovirus vectors
Mosquito species | Trapping method | Total catch | Mean % (CI) | IRR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Anopheles gambiae | BGP-BGL | 661 | 27.54 (22.99–32.09) | Ref. |
MT-PM6 | 63 | 7.88 (4.80–10.95) | 0.28 (0.19–0.41) | |
Anopheles arabiensis | BGP-BGL | 204 | 8.50 (6.78–10.22) | Ref. |
MT-PM6 | 12 | 1.50 (0.83–2.17) | 0.18 (0.09–0.33) | |
Anopheles funestus | BGP-BGL | 651 | 27.13 (23.52–30.73) | Ref. |
MT-PM6 | 203 | 25.38 (18.41–32.34) | 0.93 (0.76–1.14)†| |
Aedes aegypti | BGP-BGL | 600 | 25.00 (21.57–28.43) | Ref |
MT-PM6 | 231 | 28.88 (23.18–34.57) | 1.14 (0.90–1.45)†| |
Culex quinquefasciatus | BGP-BGL | 1244 | 51.83 (45.35–58.31) | Ref. |
MT-PM6 | 163 | 20.38 (13.43–27.32) | 0.38 (0.31–0.47) |