Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23508242›Full record

ArticleTropical parasitology2011

Cysticercus cellulosae antigens in the serodiagnosis of neurocysticercosis.

Subhash Chandra Parija, Ar Gireesh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical parasitology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Subhash Chandra ParijaDepartment of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.
Ar Gireesh

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurocysticercosis (NCC) is difficult to diagnose clinically because of its varied clinical presentation. However, an accurate diagnosis is possible only after suspicion on epidemiological grounds, proper interpretation of the clinical data, analysis of the findings on imaging studies, and specific immunological tests on the serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The diagnosis of NCC by any single parameter thus continues to remain difficult. In the past, detection of NCC was based on autopsy studies and histological confirmation. In recent times, the advent of imaging methods such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging have provided excellent non-invasive tools for easy detection of NCC. Nevertheless, an imaging technique of the brain, although useful, is not considered as a gold standard for the diagnosis of NCC. Serological tests are being increasingly used in adjunct with imaging techniques, to aid the diagnosis of NCC. Immunodiagnostic techniques include detection methods for specific antibodies and for circulating parasite antigens in the serum and CSF. Currently, many of the immunodiagnostic tests, including the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and enzyme immunotransfer blot, use purified native antigens for the immunodiagnosis of NCC. Nevertheless, the main problem with the use of native cysticercal antigens is that the native proteins often show cross reactions with sera from humans infected with other parasites. The preparation of native antigens also demand a constant supply of parasitic material from the intermediate host pig. In order to overcome the problems in using native antigens, the recombinant antigens or synthetic peptides, which can be produced under stable conditions, are being evaluated for the serodiagnosis of NCC.

Indexed as

native antigensNeurocysticercosisrecombinant antigensserodiagnosissynthetic antigens

Identifiers

PMID23508242
PMCPMC3593475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.