Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 508

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current Consensus Guidelines for Treatment of Neurocysticercosis

Open access
García, Hector H., Evans, Carlton A. W., Nash, Theodore E., Takayanagui, Osvaldo M., White, A. Clinton, Botero, David, Rajshekhar, Vedantam, Tsang, Victor C. W., Schantz, Peter M., Allan, James C., Flisser, Ana, Correa, Dolores, Sarti, Elsa, Friedland, Jon S., Martinez, S. Manuel, Gonzalez, Armando E., Gilman, Robert H., Del Brutto, Oscar H.·2002·Clinical Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

SUMMARY: Taenia solium neurocysticercosis is a common cause of epileptic seizures and other neurological morbidity in most developing countries. It is also an increasingly common diagnosis in industrialized countries because of immigration from areas where it is endemic. Its clinical manifestations are highly variable and depend on the number, stage, and size of the lesions and the host's immune response. In part due to this variability, major discrepancies exist in the treatment of neurocysticercosis. A panel of experts in taeniasis/cysticercosis discussed the evidence on treatment of neurocysticercosis for each clinical presentation, and we present the panel's consensus and areas of disagreement. Overall, four general recommendations were made: (i) individualize therapeutic decisions, including whether to use antiparasitic drugs, based on the number, location, and viability of the parasites within the nervous system; (ii) actively manage growing cysticerci either with antiparasitic drugs or surgical excision; (iii) prioritize the management of intracranial hypertension secondary to neurocysticercosis before considering any other form of therapy; and (iv) manage seizures as done for seizures due to other causes of secondary seizures (remote symptomatic seizures) because they are due to an organic focus that has been present for a long time.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/cmr.15.4.747-756.2002

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 508

Metadata

Authors
García, H. H., Evans, C. A. W., Nash, T. E., Takayanagui, O. M., White, A. C., Botero, D., Rajshekhar, V., Tsang, V. C. W., Schantz, P. M., Allan, J. C., Flisser, A., Correa, D., Sarti, E., Friedland, J. S., Martinez, S. M., Gonzalez, A. E., Gilman, R. H., & Del Brutto, O. H.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Published
2002-10
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
747-756
ISSN
  • 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6618
OpenAlex
W2150840647
Cited by
508
References
46
FWCI
11.12
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: Current Consensus Guidelines for Treatment of Neurocysticercosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/cmr.15.4.747-756.2002
The paper
García, H. H., Evans, C. A. W., Nash, T. E., Takayanagui, O. M., White, A. C., Botero, D., Rajshekhar, V., Tsang, V. C. W., Schantz, P. M., Allan, J. C., Flisser, A., Correa, D., Sarti, E., Friedland, J. S., Martinez, S. M., Gonzalez, A. E., Gilman, R. H., & Del Brutto, O. H. (2002). Current Consensus Guidelines for Treatment of Neurocysticercosis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.15.4.747-756.2002

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.