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 | 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 | 100 | na | |
Huan [54] | 1994 | 12 southern provinces | Carcass examination | 891 | 0.90 [0.45–1.76] | 1.92 [0.18–5.96] |