Skip to main content

Table 3 Research on porcine cysticercosis and estimated true prevalence in Vietnam

From: A systematic review of taeniasis, cysticercosis and trichinellosis in Vietnam

Author

Research period

Research location

Diagnosis technique

Sample size

(no. of pigs)

Apparent prevalence (%)

[95% CI]a

Prior information

True prevalence (%) [95% CrI]b

Referred diagnosis technique

Sensitivity (%) [95% CI]

Specificity (%) [95% CI]

Khue & Luc [51]

na

Nam Dinh, Ha Nam, Hai Duong, Hung Yen

Carcass examination

8000

0.00

Carcass examinationc

22.1 [15–27]

100

na

Doanh et al. [52]

1999–2001

Yen Bai, Lao Cai, Nghe An, Bac Kan, Bac Giang, Hanoi

Carcass examination

198,877

0.06

0.14 [0.0–0.34]

Doanh et al. [47]

1999–2000

Bac Ninh, Bac Kan

Antigen-ELISA

323

9.91 [7.10–13.65]

Antigen-ELISAd

86.7 [62–98]

94.7 [90–99.7]

9.64 [8.06–11.43]

De et al. [53]

2002–2003

Hanoi

Carcass examination

143,868

2e

Carcass examinationc

22.1 [15–27]

100

na

Huan [54]

1994

12 southern provinces

Carcass examination

891

0.90 [0.45–1.76]

1.92 [0.18–5.96]

  1. Abbreviation: na not applicable
  2. aConfidence interval
  3. bCredible interval
  4. cSensitivity and specificity of carcass examination based on Dorny et al. [62]
  5. dSensitivity and specificity of antigen-ELISA based on Dorny et al. [62]
  6. eCases of porcine cysticercosis