Skip to main content

Table 1 Mean nightly recaptures of malaria mosquitoes in huts with and without intervention

From: Eave ribbons treated with transfluthrin can protect both users and non-users against malaria vectors

Intervention

Mean nightly recaptures in huts with intervention/users (data from intervention huts combined)

Mean nightly recaptures in huts without intervention/non-users (data from sentinel hut only)

Total no. test nights

Indoors

Outdoors

Total No. test nights

Indoors

Outdoors

Mean recaptures ± 2SE (∑)

% Reduction (p values)

Mean recaptures ± 2SE (∑)

% Reduction (p values)

Mean recaptures ± 2SE (∑)

% Reduction (p values)

Mean recaptures ± 2SE (∑)

% Reduction (p values)

Control (all huts have only bed nets)

100

31.2 ± 2.2 (3118)

–

92.2 ± 3.7 (9222)

–

25

34.3 ± 5.3 (857)

–

91.6 ± 8.2 (2291)

–

Traps only (all huts except sentinel have Mosclean traps beside the bed nets)

40

43.3 ± 1.9 (1717)

− 38.1 (p < 0.001)

69.1 ± 3.9 (2765)

25 (p < 0.001)

10

52.2 ± 2.9 (522)

− 52.3 (p < 0.001)

82.8 ± 2.3 (828)

9.6 (p > 0.05)

Spatial repellents only (all huts except sentinel have transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons)

40

5.4 ± 1.4 (221)

82.6 (p < 0.001)

35.2 ± 3 (1409)

61.8 (p < 0.001)

10

14.6 ± 3.4 (146)

57.4 (p < 0.001)

48 ± 10.6 (480)

47.6 (p < 0.001)

Push–pull mosaic (all huts except sentinel are fitted with either Mosclean trap or transfluthrin-treated eave ribbon)

40 (in huts with ribbons)

5.7 ± 2.5 (239)

81.9 (p < 0.001)

42.2 ± 3.7 (1688)

54.3 (p < 0.001)

20

31.1 ± 4.5 (622)

9.3 (p > 0.05)

59.1 ± 6.1 (1182)

35.5 (p < 0.001)

40 (in huts with traps)

22.6 ± 2.6 (889)

27.8 (p < 0.001)

51.0 ± 3.8 (2040)

44.7 (p < 0.001)

Push–pull (all huts except sentinel are fitted with both traps and transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons)

40

6.5 ± 1.9 (275)

79.1 (p < 0.001)

46 ± 2.6 (1836)

50.2 (p < 0.001)

10

38.3 ± 2.4 (383)

− 11.7 (p > 0.05)

68.7 ± 3.1 (687)

25 (p < 0.001)

  1. Standard errors (95 confidence interval), and the percentage reduction in biting risk are also shown
  2. Outdoor biting was assessed by human landing catches, while indoor biting was assessed by CDC-light traps in all huts, including those that had Mosclean traps as the intervention