Skip to main content
. 2024 Mar 16;23:81. doi: 10.1186/s12936-024-04907-0

Table 2.

Comparison of mean numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes caught by UV-LT, CDC-LT and aspiration to HLC

Species Collection position Collection method* Mean daily trap catch RR (95% CI) P-value
An. funestus Indoors CDC-LTa 1.74 (1.02–2.45) 1.89 (1.07–3.34) 0.028
UV-LTb 3.70 (2.59–4.82) 3.97 (2.28–6.92)  < 0.001
Aspirationc 6.74 (4.69–8.78) 8.83 (4.72–16.52)  < 0.001
HLCd (Ref) 0.97 (0.61–1.39) Ref Ref
Outdoors CDC-LTa 1.00 (0.74–1.40) 3.09 (1.62–5.90)  < 0.001
UV-LTb 1.69 (1.06–2.32) 5.18 (2.68–10.00)  < 0.001
Aspirationc 0.06 (0.01–0.12) 0.21 (0.07–0.67) 0.008
HLCd (Ref) 0.37 (0.15–0.60) Ref Ref
An. arabiensis Indoors CDC_LTa 0.18 (0.06–0.29) 5.75 (1.20–27.48) 0.028
UV-LTa 0.18 (0.07–0.30) 5.87 (1.22–28.34) 0.028
Aspirationab 0.10 (0.03–0.17) 3.38 (0.64–17.90) 0.152
HLCb (Ref) 0.03 (0–0.08) Ref Ref
Outdoors CDC-LTab 0.15 (0.05–0.26) 10.81 (1.34–87.35) 0.026
UV-LTb 0.22 (0.11–0.33) 15.64 (1.97–124.36) 0.009
Aspirationac 0.05 (0–0.11) 3.59 (0.38–34.28) 0.267
HLCc (Ref) 0.01 (0–0.04) Ref Ref
An. coustani Indoors CDC-LTa 0.29 (0–0.64) 2.01 (0.50–8.03) 0.325
UV-LTa 0.08 (0.02–0.15) 0.89 (0.18–4.47) 0.887
Aspiration 0
HLCa (Ref) 0.08 (0–0.18) Ref Ref
Outdoors CDC-LTa 2.14 (0.46–3.82) 11.22 (4.95–25.43)  < 0.001
UV-LTa 3.74 (1.28–6.20) 11.65 (5.18–26.20)  < 0.001
Aspirationb 0.23 (0.05–0.41) 1.25 (0.30–5.17) 0.755
HLCb (Ref) 0.29 (0–0.58) Ref Ref

*Post hoc comparison of the trapping methods. Methods bearing the same letter do not differ significantly at 5% level. Note that for An. coustani indoors, pairwise comparisons with aspiration could not be done as there were no females of this species collected by aspiration

All variables with the same letter implies that the trapping methods do not differ significantly at 5% level based on mean daily trap catch for each mosquito species. If two variables have different letters, they are significantly different at 5% level