Comparison of target and actual sample sizes and number of clusters.

1<p><i>Excluding invalid tests and specimens unable to be tested.</i></p>2<p><i>Systematic sampling; all eligible primary sampling units surveyed.</i></p

TAS sample size by sex for school and community-based surveys.

1<p><i>57 records were missing sex identification data.</i></p

Evaluation Unit key characteristics at time of TAS-1.

<p>Evaluation Unit key characteristics at time of TAS-1.</p

Design effects calculated for TAS-1 and TAS-2 cluster surveys.

<p>Design effects calculated for TAS-1 and TAS-2 cluster surveys.</p

ICT, blood smear, and PCR results for <i>W. bancrofti</i> countries.

1<p>% of total survey population.</p>2<p>% of ICT+ individuals; some individuals could not be retraced for mf testing.</p>3<p>Systematic sampling was used in American Samoa and Sri Lanka.</p>4<p>Indonesia EU of Alor+Pantar islands is endemic for both <i>W. bancrofti</i> and <i>Brugia timori</i>. TAS-2 ICT tests were not available due to logistic problems importing diagnostic tests into the country.</p>5<p>Census critical cutoff value is equal to .02N for EUs with <i>Culex</i>, <i>Anopheles</i>, or <i>Mansonia</i> as primary LF vector.</p

Total TAS operational research costs for school and community-based surveys.

<p>Total TAS operational research costs for school and community-based surveys.</p

PanLF, Brugia Rapid, blood smear, and PCR results for <i>Brugia spp.</i> countries.

1<p>% of total survey population.</p>2<p>% of PanLF(+) or Brugia Rapid(+) individuals; some individuals could not be retraced for mf testing.</p>3<p>Indonesia EU of Alor and Pantar islands is endemic for both <i>W. bancrofti</i> and <i>Brugia timori</i>.</p

Non-participation rates observed in TAS-1 and TAS-2.

<p>Non-participation rates observed in TAS-1 and TAS-2.</p

Number of field days required to complete TAS-1 and TAS-2.

<p>Number of field days required to complete TAS-1 and TAS-2.</p

Survey design summary for TAS-1 and TAS-2.

1<p>The critical cutoff in Vanuatu can be calculated exactly as .02N because the TAS was a census without random sampling error.</p