Awolola 2014.
| Methods | Village trial | |
| Participants | Ilara ‐ An gambiae (100% S‐form) Irolu ‐ 95% An gambiae (100% S‐form), 4.5% An arabiensis Ijesa ‐ 98.1% An gambiae (80% S‐form, 19% M‐form), An arabiensis (1.6%) | |
| Interventions | Control: LLIN, PermaNet 2.0 Intervention: LLIN, PermaNet 3.0 |
|
| Outcomes | Mosquito mortality, blood feeding, sporozoite rate, mosquito density, parity rate | |
| Mosquito resistance status | Ilara ‐ resistant ‐ low (deltamethrin, 72.5% mortality, N = 120) Irolu ‐ resistant ‐ low (deltamethrin, 62.5% mortality, N = 120) Ijesa ‐ resistant ‐ low (deltamethrin, 66.7% mortality, N = 120) | |
| Net treatment | Nets unholed and unwashed | |
| Location(s) | Ilara, Nigeria ‐ untreated net Irolu, Nigeria ‐ PermaNet 2.0 Ijesa, Nigera ‐ PermaNet 3.0 | |
| Notes | Trial conducted: March 2012‐March 2013 | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Recruitment bias | Low risk | Recruiment bias is related to human participants and so not applicable to this study. |
| Were the mosquitoes in LLIN and LLIN + PBO groups comparable | Unclear risk | Mosquito species composition varied slightly pre‐ and post‐trial between the treatment villages. However, resistance level was the same. |
| Collectors blinded | High risk | Not stated if collectors where blinded, therefore judged as high risk as this is likely to impact searching effort. |
| Household blinded | Low risk | Unclear if households were blinded – not stated in the publication. We judged this as low as this is unlikely to affect the outcome. |
| Treatment allocation (was the treatment allocation sequence randomly/adequately generated | Low risk | Villages were randomly assigned to treatment arms |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Allocation concealment procedures were not adhered to, however this is unlikely to affect the results |
| Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed | Low risk | There were no incomplete data. |
| Were the raw data reported for LLIN and LLIN + PBO groups | Low risk | All necessary data were reported. |
| Clusters lost to follow‐up | Low risk | No clusters lost to follow‐up |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All measured outcomes appear to be reported |
| Correct statistical methods; adjusted for clustering | High risk | Study did not take clustering into account for statistical methods |
| Trial authors' conflicting interest | Low risk | The trial authors declared no conflicting interests, however the study was funded by Vestergaard (net manufacturers). Views and findings in the publication are stated to be those of the trial authors |