ArticleMicroorganisms2021
Collaborative Studies for the Detection of
Article in Microorganisms, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Performance of a Multiantigen Print ImmunoAssay (MAPIA) for Antibody Detection in Human Neurocysticercosis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Taenia martis Neurocysticercosis-Like Lesion in Child, Associated with Local Source, the Netherlands.Emerging infectious diseases · 2024Article
- From laboratory to clinical practice: an update of the immunological and molecular tools for neurocysticercosis diagnosis.Frontiers in parasitology · 2024Review
- Application of Ziehl Neelsen Staining Method forIranian journal of parasitologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory tools for diagnosing taeniosis/cysticercosis in non-endemic countries are available; however, there is little data on their performance. To provide information on the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of these tools, inter-laboratory studies were organized within the EU COST-Action CYSTINET (TD1302). Two serological and one coprological Ring Trials (RTs) were organized to test a panel of human-derived sera and stool samples using assays routinely conducted by the participating laboratories to detect
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.