Toé 2018.

Methods	Experimental hut trial
Participants	An coluzzii
Interventions	Control: LLIN, PermaNet 2.0, Olyset Net Intervention: LLIN, PermaNet 3.0, Olyset Plus
Outcomes	Mosquito mortality, blood feeding, deterrence, exophily
Mosquito resistance status	Vallée du Kou 5 ‐ resistant – high (deltamethrin, 2.5% mortality, N = 163; permethrin, 5% mortality, N = 153) Tengrela ‐ resistant – high (deltamethrin, 34% mortality, N = 85; permethrin, 14% mortality, N = 101)
Net treatment	Nets holed, nets unwashed
Location(s)	Vallée du Kou 5, Burkina Faso Tengrela, Burkina Faso
Notes	Trial conducted: September 2014‐October 2014
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	Unclear risk	Unclear if huts were cleaned between treatments – not stated in the publication
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	The trial authors have no competing interests.