Table 4.

Comparison of mean numbers of An. funestus, An. arabiensis and An. coustani collected outdoors and indoor between each of the outdoor trapping methods (MET, FTT, HDT, OLT, HLC) and ILT in Masogo village

Comparison	Anopheles species	Collection method	Mean	Risk ratio	Lower CL	Upper CL	P-values
MET and ILT	An. arabiensis	MET	0.28	0.18	0.06	0.48	0.001
		ILT	1.44	Ref
	An. funestus	MET	0.12	0.14	0.03	0.54	0.005
		ILT	0.88	Ref
	An. coustani	MET	0.08	2.00	0.18	22.06	0.57
		ILT	0.04	Ref
FTT and ILT	An. arabiensis	FTT	2.60	1.87	0.94	3.72	0.07
		ILT	1.48	Ref
	An. funestus	FTT	2.16	1.20	0.57	2.53	0.64
		ILT	1.80	Ref
	An. coustani	FTT	0.24	3.00	0.58	15.39	0.19
		ILT	0.08	Ref
HDT and ILT	An. arabiensis	HDT	0.68	0.50	0.23	1.08	0.08
		ILT	1.48	Ref
	An. funestus	HDT	0.36	0.28	0.09	0.80	0.02
		ILT	1.36	Ref
	An. coustani	HDT	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inf	1.00
		ILT	0.16	Ref
HLC and ILT	An. arabiensis	HLC	0.52	0.45	0.17	1.20	0.11
		ILT	1.08	Ref
	An. funestus	HLC	0.52	0.48	0.15	1.52	0.21
		ILT	1.08	Ref
	An. coustani	HLC	0.32	4	0.80	20.10	0.09
		ILT	0.08	Ref
OLT and ILT	An. arabiensis	OLT	0.92	0.74	0.30	1.84	0.52
		ILT	1.20	Ref
	An. funestus	OLT	0.24	0.21	0.08	0.57	0.002
		ILT	1.16	Ref
	An. coustani	OLT	0.92	5.75	1.79	18.46	0.003
		ILT	0.16	Ref

The models included terms for collection methods and an interaction term. The risk ratios (RR) were generated by exponentiating the model coefficients