The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Strongyloides stercoralis: there but not seen
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis is often delayed owing to patients presenting with nonspecific gastrointestinal complaints, a low parasite load and irregular larval output. Although several diagnostic methods exist to detect the presence of S. stercoralis there is no gold standard. In immunocompromised hosts (patients with malignancy, organ transplantation or concurrent human T-cell-lymphocytic virus 1 infection or those on corticosteroid therapy), autoinfection can go unchecked with large numbers of invasive Strongyloides larvae disseminating widely and causing hyperinfection with dissemination, which can be fatal. This review will highlight current published research on improved diagnostic methods for S. stercoralis and the immune mechanisms thought to be responsible for hyperinfection syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent advances in diagnosis of S. stercoralis include a luciferase immunoprecipitation system that shows increased sensitivity and specificity to detect S. stercoralis-specific antibodies and a real-time quantitative PCR method to detect S. stercoralis in fecal samples. The severe clinical manifestations of S. stercoralis observed in human T-cell-lymphocytic virus 1 coinfected patients has been associated with an increased proportion of regulatory T cells that may be responsible for blunting otherwise effective granulocyte responses. SUMMARY: Strongyloidiasis is a major global health challenge that is underestimated in many countries. Novel diagnostic methods are expected to improve epidemiological studies and control efforts for prevention and treatment of strongyloidiasis. More studies are needed to unveil the mechanisms of severe clinical manifestations of human strongyloidiasis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Strongyloides stercoralis: A Plea for Action
Bisoffi, Z., Buonfrate, D., Montresor, A., Requena-Méndez, A., Muñoz, J., Krolewiecki, A. J., Gotuzzo, E., Mena, M. A., Chiodini, P. L., Anselmi, M., et al. (2013) · PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0002214 · Cited by 313
Ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole for Strongyloides stercoralis infection
Henriquez-Camacho, C., Gotuzzo, E., Echevarria, J., White Jr, A. C., Terashima, A., Samalvides, F., Pérez-Molina, J. A., & Plana, M. N. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007745.pub3 · Cited by 193
Epidemiology of intestinal polyparasitism among Orang Asli school children in rural Malaysia
Al-Delaimy, A. K., Al-Mekhlafi, H. M., Nasr, N. A., Sady, H., Atroosh, W. M., Nashiry, M., Anuar, T. S., Moktar, N., Lim, Y. A. L., & Mahmud, R. (2014) · PLoS neglected tropical diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003074 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Montes, M., Sawhney, C., & Barros, N.
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 500-504
- ISSN
- 0951-7375 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1983820446
- Cited by
- 250
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Strongyloides stercoralis: there but not seen. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/qco.0b013e32833df718
- The paper
- Montes, M., Sawhney, C., & Barros, N. (2010). Strongyloides stercoralis: there but not seen. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1097/qco.0b013e32833df718
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.