Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of past studies of the efficacy relative to HLC of the CDC-LT and HDT against Anopheles species

From: The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) compared to the human landing catch (HLC) for measuring Anopheles biting in rural Tanzania

No.

Area of study

Dominant anophelines

Relative efficacy: Ratio to HLC (95% confidence intervals)

Was trap efficacy dependent on mosquito density?

References

A. CDC-LT

i. Mosquito species

1

Ulanga, Tanzania

An. arabiensis

An. funestus

0.35 (0.27–0.46)

0.63 (0.51–0.79)

Yes

Yes

This study

2

Ulanga, Tanzania

98% An. gambiae s.l

2% An. funestus

0.33 (0.24–0.46)

0.82 (0.61–1.10)

Not assessed

Okumu et al. 2008 [59]

3

Kenya, Zambia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Tanzania

An. gambiae s.l

An. funestus

1.06 (0.68–1.64)

1.37 (0.70–2.68)

Yes

Yes

Briët et al. 2015 [15]

4

Lwanda, Kenya

74% An. gambiae s.l

26% An. funestus

1.86 (1.73–2.00)

1.91 (1.66–2.19)

No

No

Mathenge et al. 2004 [60]

5

Ahero, Kenya

An. arabiensis

An. funestus

0.56 (0.49–0.66)

1.19 (1.03–1.37)

Yes

Yes

Mathenge et al. 2005 [30]

6

Rarieda, Kenya

An. gambiae s.l

An. funestus

1.18 (0.55–2.54)

0.69 (0.49–0.98)

Not assessed

Wong et al. 2013 [20]

ii. ITNs vs. no ITNs

   

With ITNs

Without ITNs

  

7

Bo, Sierra Leone

An. gambiae s.l

0.88 (0.72–1.05)

0.78 (0.60–1.01)

No (without ITNs) Yes (with ITNs)

Magbity et al. 2002 [27]*†

iii. Indoors vs. outdoors

   

Indoors

Outdoors

  

8

Wosera, Papua New Guinea

An. koliensis

An. panctulatus

An. karwari

An. farauti s.l

An. longirostris

An. bancroftii

0.28 (0.27–0.29)

0.10 (0.09–0.11)

0.12 (0.11–0.13)

0.07 (0.06–0.09)

0.12 (0.08–0.15)

0.20 (0.15–0.27)

0.27 (0.26–0.28)

0.09 (0.08–0.09)

0.12 (0.11–0.13)

0.06 (0.05–0.08)

0.07 (0.05–1.05)

0.15 (0.11–0.20)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Hii et al. 2000 [58]

9

Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea

An. gambiae s.s &

An. melas

0.12 (0.11–0.14) (Mongola area)

0.36 (0.32–0.40) (Arena Blanca area)

0.13 (0.10–0.16) (Riaba area)

0.009 (0.01–0.012) (Mongola area)

0.10 (0.09–0.12) (Arena Blanca area)

0.07 (0.05–0.09) (Riaba area)

Yes (indoors) No (outdoors)

Yes

Yes

Overgaard et al. 2012 [55]*

iv. Location

   

Kakola-Ombaka area

Masogo area

  

10

Nyando & Muhoroni, Kenya

An. arabiensis

An. funestus

An. coustani

1.98 (1.01–3.86)

0.88 (0.37–2.11)

3.03 (1.65–5.56)

1.83 (0.70–4.79)

0.45 (0.13–1.57)

2.88 (1.15–7.22)

Not assessed

Abong’o et al. 2021 [32]

B. HDT

1

Ulanga, Tanzania

An. arabiensis

An. funestus

0.04 (0.01–0.14)

0.10 (0.07–0.15)

Yes

Yes

This study

i. Type of host bait

  

Cow-baited

Human-baited

  

2

Kisumu & Homa Bay, Kenya

An. gambiae s.s &

An. arabiesnsis &

An. funestus &

An. coustani

7.08 (Kisian)

8.34 (Homa Bay)

0.17 (Kisian)

0.60 (Homa Bay)

Not assessed

Abong’o et al. 2018 [35]*

ii. Location

   

Kakola-Ombaka area

Masogo area

  

3

Nyando & Muhoroni, Kenya

An. arabiensis

An. funestus

An. coustani

An. pharoensis

5.69 (2.98–10.86)

1.38 (0.60–3.18)

0 18(0.09–0.37)

NA

1.32 (0.49–3.59)

0.66 (0.21–2.09)

2.88 (1.15–7.22)

NA

Not assessed

Abong’o et al. 2021 [32]

   

Lakkang area

Pucak area

  

4

Chikwawa, Malawi

An. gambiae s.s &

An. Arabiensis &

An. coustani &

An. quadriannulatus &

An. tenebrosus

1.03 (0.80–1.30)

0.83–3.17)

Not assessed

Zembere et al. 2021 [33]*

iii. Season

   

Rainy season

Early dry season

Late dry season

  

5

Vallée de Kou, Burkina Faso

An. gambiae

An. pharoensis

An. coustani

9.6 (9.4–9.7)

10.5 (10.4–10.7)

NA

2.2 (2.0–2.4)

2.8 (2.5–3.0)

18.6 (18.2–19.1)

1.7 (1.3–2.0)

1.7 (1.3–2.1)

NA

Not assessed

Hawkes et al. 2017 [31]

  1. NA not assessed because of data scarcity
  2. *Ratio estimated for pooled mosquito species
  3. †Three CDC-LTs were compared to two HLC catchers