Moore 2016.

Methods	Experimental hut trial
Participants	An arabiensis (100%), An funestus group (95% s.s.)
Interventions	Control: LLIN, MAGNet LN Intervention: LLIN, Veeralin LN
Outcomes	Mosquito mortality, blood feeding, deterrence, exophily
Mosquito resistance status	An arabiensis ‐ susceptible (alphacypermethrin, 100% mortality, N = 97) An funestus ‐ unclassified
Net treatment	Nets holed, nets unwashed and washed (x 20)
Location(s)	Ifakara, Tanzania
Notes	Although additional data provided showed resistance to deltamethrin and permethrin in An gambaie s.l.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Were the mosquitoes in LLIN and LLIN + PBO groups comparable	Low risk	The hut trial was conducted in the same area, therefore characteristics are similar
Collectors blinded	Unclear risk	Paper does not state if collectors were blinded.
Sleepers blinded	Unclear risk	Paper does not state if sleepers were blinded.
Sleeper bias	Low risk	Sleepers were rotated between hut following a Latin square design.
Treatment allocation (was the treatment allocation sequence randomly/adequately generated	Low risk	Treatments were not randomly allocated to huts however the trial completed a full rotation through the huts.
Treatment rotation	Low risk	Treatments were rotated between hut following a Latin square design.
Standardized hut design	Low risk	The study used the standard design of the Ifakara experimental huts.
Hut cleaning between treatments	Unclear risk	The paper does not state if huts were cleared between treatments.
Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed	Low risk	No incomplete outcome data
Were the raw data reported for LLIN and LLIN + PBO groups	Low risk	No missing outcome data
Trial authors' conflicting interest	Low risk	The trial authors declared they received prescribed standard fees from Vestergaard Frandsen for evaluating their pesticide products, however this is standard practice.