Pennetier 2013.

Methods	Experimental hut trial
Participants	95% An gambiae: M‐form (100%), 5% An arabiensis (Corbel 2010)
Interventions	Control: LLIN, Olyset Net Intervention: LLIN, Olyset Plus
Outcomes	Mosquito mortality, blood feeding, deterrence, exophily
Mosquito resistance status	Proxy data. Resistant ‐ high (permethrin, 22% mortality, N = 100) (Djègbè 2011)
Net treatment	Nets holed, nets unwashed and washed (x 20)
Location(s)	Malanville, Benin
Notes	Trial conducted: September 2011‐December 2011
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 not randomized to huts, but instead were rotated fully between all of the huts using a Latin square design.
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	Low risk	All huts were cleaned between treatments.
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.
Trial authors' conflicting interest	Low risk	Funders of the trial stated that they had no part in data collection, data analysis or manuscript preparation