Corbel 2010.
| Methods | Experimental hut trial | |
| Participants | Vallée du Kou, Burkina Faso ‐ 100% An gambiae: M‐form (15%), S‐form (85%) Malanville, Benin ‐ 95% An gambiae: M‐form (100%), 5% An arabiensis Pitoa, Cameroon ‐ 5% An gambiae: S‐form (100%), 95% An arabiensis |
|
| Interventions | Control: LLIN, PermaNet 2.0 Intervention: LLIN, PermaNet 3.0 |
|
| Outcomes | Mosquito mortality, blood feeding, deterrence, exophily | |
| Mosquito resistance status | Vallée du Kou, Burkina Faso ‐ resistant – high (deltamethrin, 23% mortality, N = 100) Malanville, Benin ‐ resistant – low (deltamethrin, 85% mortality, N = 100) Pitoa, Cameroon ‐ resistant – low (deltamethrin, 70% mortality, N = 100) |
|
| Net treatment | Nets holed, nets unwashed and washed (x 20) | |
| Location(s) | Vallée du Kou, Burkina Faso Malanville, Benin Pitoa, Cameroon |
|
| Notes | Trial conducted: Vallée du Kou, Burkina Faso ‐ September 2007 to November 2007 Malanville, Benin ‐ July 2008 to September 2008 Pitoa, Cameroon ‐ July 2008 to September 2008 |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Were the mosquitoes in LLIN and LLIN + PBO groups comparable | Low risk | Huts situated in the same area – mosquito characteristics will be the same |
| Collectors blinded | Unclear risk | Unclear if collectors blinded – not stated in publication |
| Sleepers blinded | Unclear risk | Unclear if sleeper blinded – not stated in publication |
| Sleeper bias | Low risk | Sleepers were rotated between huts using a Latin square design. |
| Treatment allocation (was the treatment allocation sequence randomly/adequately generated | Low risk | Treatments were randomly allocated to huts. |
| Treatment rotation | Low risk | Treatments were rotated between huts using a Latin square design |
| Standardized hut design | Low risk | Huts were built in a standard West‐African design. |
| Hut cleaning between treatments | Unclear risk | Unclear if huts were cleaned between treatments – not stated in publication |
| Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed | Low risk | There were no incomplete outcome data |
| Were the raw data reported for LLIN and LLIN + PBO groups | Low risk | All necessary data were reported. |
| Trial authors' conflicting interest | Low risk | The trial authors have no competing interests |