Ejaz Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi ( Institute of Public Health, Lahore )
1. Observation: P<0.5 was taken as statistically insignificant. This is a grave oversight as when investigating statistical correlations, P<0.5 is always taken, a value higher than that means any correlation obtained could be circumstantial , or at the risk of being direct, incorrect. Rarely, in some large scale randomized clinical trials, P<0.1 might be taken but never higher than that.
Response: P <0.05 was taken as significant. P <0.5 was a typographic error. This is regretted.
2. Observation: The study fails to mention any significant limitations that it might have has to overcome besides the choosing of different mosquito species, such as tempering of the ovitraps by house residents. And if no such tempering occurred, then how was it safe guarded against. The significance of a detailed limitations section is not to be over looked as it shapes and designs future studies pertaining to similar subjects. If missing, it can be perceived as unawareness on the author part and hinder any future studies by not preparing them for upcoming difficulties.
Response: Regarding tempering of ovitraps by house residents, the matter was thoroughly discussed in a pilot study carried out before the actual study and it was agreed that residents will be briefed thoroughly about the safety of ovitraps. It is humanly impossible to put surveillance cameras on each ovitrap and as the residents had no vested interest, it cannot be considered a limitation.