Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27438337›Full record

ArticleAnnals of neurology2016

New diagnostic criteria for neurocysticercosis: Reliability and validity.

Arturo Carpio, Agnès Fleury, Matthew L Romo, Ronaldo Abraham, Jaime Fandiño, Juan C Durán, Graciela Cárdenas, Jorge Moncayo, Cleonísio Leite Rodrigues, Daniel San-Juan and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Repair capacity ofFuture microbiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Human Neurocysticercosis: An Overview.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 11 institutions in 8 countries.

Arturo CarpioFacultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador. afleury@biomedicas.unam.mx.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5821-6379
Agnès FleuryInstituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía, Secretaría de Salud, México, DF, México.
Matthew L RomoFacultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Ronaldo AbrahamUniversidade de Taubaté, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Jaime FandiñoFundación Centro Colombiano de Epilepsia y Enfermedades Neurológicas, FIRE, Cartagena, Colombia.
Juan C DuránHospital de Clínicas, Unidad de Neurología, La Paz, Bolivia.
Graciela CárdenasInstituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía, Secretaría de Salud, México, DF, México.
Jorge MoncayoEscuela de Medicina, Universidad Internacional del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.
Cleonísio Leite RodriguesHospital Geral, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Daniel San-JuanInstituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía, Secretaría de Salud, México, DF, México.
Marcos Serrano-DueñasFacultad de Medicina de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Servicio de Neurología del Hospital Carlos Andrade Marin del Instituto Ecuatoriano de Seguridad Social (IESS), Quito, Ecuador.
Oswaldo TakayanaguiFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Josemir W SanderNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6041-9661
Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía · MXFundacion Centro Colombiano de Epilepsia y en Enfermedades Neurologicas · COHospital de Clínicas · UYHospital Geral de Fortaleza · BRPontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador · ECThe Graduate Center, CUNY · USUCL Biomedical Research Centre · GBUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidade de Taubaté · BRUniversidad Internacional del Ecuador · ECUniversity of Cuenca · EC

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe diagnosis of neurocysticercosis (NCC) remains problematic because of the heterogeneity of its clinical, immunological, and imaging characteristics. Our aim was to develop and assess a new set of diagnostic criteria for NCC, which might allow for the accurate detection of, and differentiation between, parenchymal and extraparenchymal disease.

methodsA group of Latin American NCC experts developed by consensus a new set of diagnostic criteria for NCC. A multicenter, retrospective study was then conducted to validate it. The reference standard for diagnosis of active NCC was the disappearance or reduction of cysts after anthelmintic treatment. In total, three pairs of independent neurologists blinded to the diagnosis evaluated 93 cases (with NCC) and 93 controls (without NCC) using the new diagnostic criteria. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to estimate sensitivity and specificity.

resultsInter-rater reliability (kappa) of diagnosis among evaluators was 0.60. For diagnosis of NCC versus no NCC, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 93.2% and specificity of 81.4%. For parenchymal NCC, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 89.8% and specificity of 80.7% and for extraparenchymal NCC, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 65.9% and specificity of 94.9%.

interpretationThese criteria have acceptable reliability and validity and could be a new tool for clinicians and researchers. An advantage of the new criteria is that they consider parasite location (ie, parenchymal or extraparenchymal), which is an important factor determining the clinical, immunological, and radiological presentation of the disease, and importantly, its treatment and prognosis. Ann Neurol 2016;80:434-442.

Indexed as

ConsensusAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeurocysticercosisPractice Guidelines as TopicReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID27438337
PMCPMC5053253
OpenAlexW2500668598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.