. 2014 Apr 1;13:131. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-131

Table 4.

Indoor mosquito densities in field experimental huts that had mosquito coils and DDT compared to huts that did not have insecticides (n = 64 nights)

Treatment	N	Median	IQR	RR	95% CI	z value	p value
*Anopheles arabiensis*
No insecticide	5650	70.00	50.25 – 104.50	NA	NA	NA	NA
Transfluthrin coils	3881	47.00	27.25 – 75.25	0.62	[0.47 - 0.87]	-6.37	<0.001
Metofluthrin coils	4249	54.00	35.50 – 82.00	0.70	[0.50 - 0.98]	-4.77	<0.001
DDT 2gm²	5813	67.00	41.50 – 108.75	0.92	[0.65 - 1.20]	-1.22	0.224
*Culex quinquefasciatus*
No insecticide	2300	26.00	19.50 – 46.25	NA	NA	NA	NA
Transfluthrin coils	1782	26.50	13.00 – 39.25	0.87	[0.73 - 1.05]	-1.46	0.143
Metofluthrin coils	1645	22.50	13.75 – 36.25	0.72	[0.61 - 0.85]	-3.80	<0.001
DDT 2gm²	2102	27.00	16.75 – 44.00	1.13	[1.01 - 1.28]	-1.40	0.161
*Mansonia* spp.
No insecticide	947	12.00	8.75	NA	NA	NA	NA
Transfluthrin coils	150	2.00	1.00	0.16	[0.07 - 0.19]	-8.17	<0.001
Metofluthrin coils	185	2.00	0.75	0.12	[0.09 - 0.24]	-7.56	<0.001
DDT 2gm²	734	9.00	5.75	0.50	[0.33 - 0.77]	-3.16	0.002

Legend: The table illustrates reduction of indoor mosquitoes when huts were treated with coils and DDT, N- Total number of mosquitoes; Median – number of mosquitoes per hut per night; IQR – Interquartile range; RR – Relative rate; CI – Confidence intervals.