Abstract: Objective To analyze the cockroach infestation rates determined by the sticky trap method and visual observation, and to evaluate the difference, consistency, and correlation between the two methods. Methods The sticky trap method and visual observation were used simultaneously to carry out comparative studies in four districts in 2018. Between-group comparison was made by the Chi-square test or rank sum test. Results The sticky trap method gave a significantly higher cockroach infestation rate than visual observation (7.92% vs. 2.56%, χ²=153.893, P<0.001). Compared with visual observation, the sticky trap method had a lower frequency of the infestation rate in the 0% group but higher frequencies from the 0%~group to the 70%~group. Both the sticky trap method and visual observation gave higher infestation rates in farmers' markets (16.95%, 4.80%) and food industry (14.17%, 2.76%), and lower infestation rates in hospitals (2.17%, 1.83%) and residential areas (4.29%, 1.58%). By using the sticky trap method, the infestation rate was higher from May to November and lower in in January and November; by visual observation, the cockroach infestation rate was higher from March to July and lower in January and March. The cockroach infestation rates determined by the two methods were consistent (Z=12.212, P<0.001), with a simple Kappa coefficient of 0.47. There was a correlation between the two methods (r=0.560, P<0.001). Conclusion Cockroach infestation can be effectively reflected by the infestation rate determined by the sticky trap method or visual observation. The two methods are to a certain extent consistent and correlated with each other. However, the sticky trap method is more sensitive than visual observation.

Key words: Sticky trap method, Visual observation, Infestation rate, Correlation, Cockroach

摘要： 目的 分析粘捕法和目测法的侵害率结果，评估二者侵害率指标的差异性、一致性和相关性。方法 2018年选择4个设区市开展粘捕法和目测法的同步对比试验，采用χ²检验或秩和检验比较组间率的差异。结果 粘捕法和目测法的侵害率分别为7.92%和2.56%，粘捕法的侵害率明显高于目测法（χ²=153.893，P<0.001）。粘捕法的侵害率在0%组的频数低于目测法，但在0%~组至70%~组的频数均高于目测法。粘捕法和目测法的侵害率均以农贸市场及餐饮行业较高，分别为16.95%、4.80%和14.17%、2.76%；以医院和居民区较低，分别为2.17%、1.83%和4.29%、1.58%。粘捕法的侵害率在5－11月较高，1和3月较低；目测法的侵害率在3－7月较高，1和11月较低。2种监测方法的侵害率结果具有一致性（Z=12.212，P<0.001），简单Kappa系数为0.47。2种监测方法得出的侵害率存在相关性（r=0.560，P<0.001）。结论 粘捕法和目测法的侵害率指标均能有效反映蜚蠊侵害情况，二者一定程度上具有一致性和相关性，但粘捕法比目测法更敏感。

关键词: 粘捕法, 目测法, 侵害率, 相关性, 蜚蠊