. 2012 Nov 14;5:262. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-262

Table 2.

Endophily rate of Anopheles gambiae s.l. observed before and after two interventions in districts of Adjohoun, Dangbo, Misserete and Seme

Districts	Before intervention (May-July 2008)				After intervention (May-July 2009)
	Number of females caught	Number of *An. gambiae* caught by PSC	Endophily rate		Number of females caught	Number of *An. gambiae* caught by PSC	Endophily rate
			Mean	Confidence interval			Mean	Confidence interval
IRS arm
Adjohoun	84	58	68.83^a	[58.02-78.69]	32	0	0^b	[0.00-10.91]
Dangbo	84	53	63.33^a	[51.87-73.37]	48	4	8. 33^b	[2.32-19.98]
Misserete ₁	84	52	61.83^a	[50.66-72.29]	5	0	0^b	[0.00-52.20]
Misserete ₂	288	210	73^a	[67.39-77.97]	4	0	0^b	[0.00-60.25]
Seme	388	250	63.67^a	[59.44-69.20]	0	0	-	-
Akron Control	88	45	49.33^a	[40.24-61.95]	132	68	51.67^a	[42.66-60.30]
LLITN arm
Adjohoun	91	55	60.50^a	[49.64-70.54]	72	8	11.11^b	[4.92-20.73]
Dangbo	82	50	61.50^a	[49.57-71.57]	100	52	52^a	[41.78-62.10]
Seme	90	55	60.83^a	[50.25-71.21]	216	74	32.50^b	[27.95-41.00]
Akron Control	404	216	53.33^a	[48.47-58.42]	384	200	52.08^a	[46.96-57.18]

For the mean of each district, values of the same line which carry same letters in exposant were not significantly different (p > 0.05).