Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Strongyloides stercoralis: A Plea for Action

Open access
Bisoffi, Zeno, Buonfrate, Dora, Montresor, Antonio, Requena-Méndez, Ana, Muñoz, Jose, Krolewiecki, Alejandro J., Gotuzzo, Eduardo, Mena, Maria Alejandra, Chiodini, Peter L., Anselmi, Mariella, Moreira, Juan, Albonico, Marco·2013·PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Abstract

More than one century later, the key issues regarding this parasite (subsequently renamed Strongyloides stercoralis) are essentially the same, and although researchers have recently given more attention to this infection, systematic action plans still lag behind. There is widespread agreement in the scientific community that its prevalence is largely underestimated [2]. The current estimate of 30 to 100 million infected persons in the world dates back to review articles published between 1989 and 1996 [3], [4], and is cited by most subsequent papers. These figures were mostly based on surveys aimed at defining the prevalence of parasitic infections, without using adequate diagnostic techniques for S. stercoralis. For example, Kato-Katz, a technique that is commonly used in surveys aiming to assess intestinal helminth infections [5], is poorly sensitive for this parasite. Larvae of S. stercoralis in stool are often scanty, and therefore they are most often missed by this technique that examines a small amount of faeces (between 20 and 50 mg, depending on the template). Larvae can be detected by this technique only occasionally, when the larval output is particularly high [6]. More reliable prevalence estimates have been made by geographically confined surveys, using alternative faecal-based diagnostic methods that are much more sensitive such as Baermann or Koga agar plate culture [7], [8]. Serology (ELISA or IFAT) is even more sensitive, but its specificity is less well defined. Problems of cross-reactivity seem to arise especially in areas where other nematodes, particularly filariae, are also endemic. New and promising tools such as serologic methods based on recombinant antigens or PCR are also available in some referral centers. However, the optimal diagnostic strategy, both for epidemiological surveys and for individual diagnosis and screening, has yet to be defined and certainly deserves further research

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 · 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002214

Cites

24 of 24 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 24 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Bisoffi, Z., Buonfrate, D., Montresor, A., Requena-Méndez, A., Muñoz, J., Krolewiecki, A. J., Gotuzzo, E., Mena, M. A., Chiodini, P. L., Anselmi, M., Moreira, J., & Albonico, M.
Venue
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Published
2013-05-09
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
e2214
ISSN
  • 1935-2727 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-2735
OpenAlex
W2143704424
Cited by
313
References
24
FWCI
14.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A Plea for Action. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002214
The paper
Bisoffi, Z., Buonfrate, D., Montresor, A., Requena-Méndez, A., Muñoz, J., Krolewiecki, A. J., Gotuzzo, E., Mena, M. A., Chiodini, P. L., Anselmi, M., Moreira, J., & Albonico, M. (2013). Strongyloides stercoralis: A Plea for Action. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002214

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.