Table 2.
Estimates of a negative binomial regression for the comparison of outdoor host-seeking anopheline density between HDNT and HBLT in Ahero and Iguhu, western Kenya
| Site and species | Traps | Number collected | EMM (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahero | |||||
| An. arabiensis | HDNT | 6188 | 148.83 (109.67–201.97) | 3.43 (2.22–5.30) | < 0.001* |
| HBLT | 1862 | 43.40 (31.90–59.04) | 1.0a | ||
| An. funestus s.l. | HDNT | 392 | 9.21 (6.67–12.71) | 3.24 (1.99–5.25) | < 0.001* |
| HBLT | 137 | 2.84 (1.99–4.06) | 1.0a | ||
| An. pharoensis | HDNT | 1386 | 32.91 (24.09–44.96) | 1.36 (0.87–2.13) | 0.183 |
| HBLT | 1016 | 24.25 (17.72–33.19) | 1.0a | ||
| An. coustani | HDNT | 895 | 21.30 (15.59–29.11) | 3.55 (2.25–5.61) | < 0.001* |
| HBLT | 252 | 6.00 (4.32–8.34) | 1.0a | ||
| Iguhu | |||||
| An. gambiae s.l. | HDNT | 92 | 2.17 (1.50–3.13) | 1.29 (0.75–2.20) | 0.353 |
| HBLT | 70 | 1.68 (1.14–2.47) | 1.0a | ||
| An. funestus s.l. | HDNT | 34 | 0.81 (0.52–1.27) | 1.42 (0.72–2.79) | 0.308 |
| HBLT | 24 | 0.57 (0.35–0.94) | 1.0a | ||
| An. pharoensis | HDNT | 6 | 0.13 (0.05–0.32) | 1.45 (0.38–5.58) | 0.587 |
| HBLT | 4 | 0.09 (0.03–0.26) | 1.0a | ||
| An. coustani | HDNT | 38 | 0.86 (0.55–1.34) | 1.65 (0.83–3.27) | 0.151 |
| HBLT | 22 | 0.52 (0.31–0.87) | 1.0a | ||
| Total anophelines | HDNT | 9031 | 108.69 (87.54–134.96) | 2.75 (2.01–3.74) | < 0.001* |
| HBLT | 3387 | 39.60 (31.84–49.25) | 1.0a | ||
A total of 42 trap-nights were conducted for each trap in each study site
HBLT human-odour-baited CDC light trap, HDNT human-baited double net trap, EMM estimated marginal mean density, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
* Statistically significant
aReference value