ArticleHeliyon2018
Comparison of complementary diagnostic tests in cerebrospinal fluid and serum for neurocysticercosis.
Article in Heliyon, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occurrence of autochthonous neurocysticercosis in Germany: a case report.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Subarachnoid neurocysticercosis: emerging concepts and treatment.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2020Review
- Neurocysticercosis Diagnosed byCase reports in infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Monitoring treatment of Taenia solium- neurocysticercosis by detection of circulating antigens: a case report.BMC neurology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of immunologic tests in the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis (NC) is controversial and few studies have made comparisons among them. The objective of this study was to compare immunological tests in both serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for the diagnosis of NC. We conducted a case-control study in Cuenca, Ecuador, enrolling patients with NC (N = 24) and matching them with other neurosurgical patients (N = 18). To detect cysticercal antigen, we used an HP10 antigen assay in serum and CSF ("HP10 Ag -serum -CSF") and a commercial antigen assay in serum (apDia, "ELISA-Ag-serum"), and to detect cysticercal DNA, we used a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay in CSF ("PCR-CSF"). Assay sensitivities were: HP10 Ag-serum (41.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.1-63.4), HP10 Ag-CSF (87.5%, 95% CI: 67.6-97.3), ELISA-Ag-serum (62.5%, 95% CI: 40.6-81.2), and PCR-CSF (79.2%, 95% CI: 57.9-92.9). Sensitivities were higher when limiting to participants with extraparenchymal NC. Specificity was 100% for all assays except ELISA-Ag-serum (72.2%). This preliminary study demonstrated the potential usefulness of the PCR and HP10 Ag assay in CSF, especially for extraparenchymal NC; thus, they could be considered as complementary diagnostic tools when neuroimaging is not conclusive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.