Skip to main content

Table 3 Protection conferred indoors and outdoors against anopheline and culicine species in Kilisa rice farms when 1.5 and 2.5% transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons were fitted along the eaves of rice farm huts

From: Protecting migratory farmers in rural Tanzania using eave ribbons treated with the spatial mosquito repellent, transfluthrin

Mosquito speciesTreatmentIndoorsOutdoors
TotalGeometric mean (LCI-UCI)% protection (LCI-UCI)p valuesTotalGeometric mean (LCI-UCI)% protection (LCI-UCI)p values
Anopheles arabiensisUntreated4975.00 (4.20–5.94)__581.57 (1.31–1.90)__
1.5% transfluthrin1482.12 (1.70–2.64)77 (64–85)< 0.001161.10 (0.95–1.28)77 (48–90)< 0.001
2.5% transfluthrin1632.20 (1.74–2.78)74 (59–84)< 0.001171.30 (1.00–1.69)72 (37–88)0.002
Anopheles funestusUntreated209320.71 (17.96–23.89)__4794.30 (3.44–5.39)__
1.5% transfluthrin8689.84 (8.47–11.44)60 (49–68)< 0.0011842.18 (1.82–2.60)56 (39–68)< 0.001
2.5% transfluthrin98810.85 (9.14–12.89)60 (49–68)< 0.0011692.25 (1.90–2.66)59 (44–71)< 0.001
Culex speciesUntreated2823.09 (2.54–3.75)__121.22 (0.89–1.67)__
1.5% transfluthrin441.55 (1.23–1.96)84 (73–90)< 0.00141 (1–1)63 (0 –91)0.187
2.5% transfluthrin321.55 (1.20–1.99)88 (79–93)< 0.00151.44 (0.30–6.97)69 (0–94)0.124
Mansonia speciesUntreated6647.51 (6.31–8.94)_251.70 (1.26–2.31)__
1.5% transfluthrin141.36 (0.92–2.00)98 (96–99)< 0.001101.51 (0.92–2.50)76 (0–97)0.145
2.5% transfluthrin292.22 (1.29–3.83)97 (93–98)< 0.00161.32 (0.55–3.15)90 (25–99)0.026
  1. Each treatment arm had 21 nights of sampling. Percentage protective efficacy is estimated for each treatment relative to the respective controls
  2. n number of nights, LCI lower confidence interval, UCI upper confidence interval, p value Wald’s p value