Stiles‐Ocran 2013.
| Methods | Village trial | |
| Participants | An gambiae | |
| Interventions | Control: LLIN, PermaNet 2.0 Intervention: LLIN, PermaNet 3.0 |
|
| Outcomes | Sporozoite rate, mosquito density, parity rate | |
| Mosquito resistance status | Futa ‐ resistant ‐ moderate (33.3% mortality, N = 96) Abrabra‐ resistant ‐ moderate (43.7% mortality, N = 126) Kunkumso ‐ resistant ‐ high (28.4% mortality, N = 109) Anyinabrim ‐ resistant ‐ moderate (53.2% mortality, N = 109) Wenchi ‐ resistant ‐ low (61.9% mortality, N =126) | |
| Net treatment | Nets unholed and unwashed | |
| Location(s) | Futa, Ghana ‐ no net control Abrabra, Ghana ‐ PermaNet 2.0 Kunkumso, Ghana ‐ PermaNet 2.0 Anyinabrim, Ghana ‐ PermaNet 3.0 Wench, Ghana ‐ PermaNet 3.0 | |
| Notes | Trial conducted: November 2010‐August 2011 | |
| 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. Resistance level varies between villages. Data are, however, provided pre‐ and post‐trial. |
| Collectors blinded | High risk | Not stated if collectors were blinded, therefore judged as high risk as this is likely to affect 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 impact on 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 | Unclear risk | Study data were collected for use in Vestergaard PermaNet 3.0 product dossier |