Table 2a.

Summary of results and potential for bias of articles published on the effectiveness of community-based control strategies aimed at reducing human cysticercosis, taeniasis or neurocysticercosis or at improving knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP).

Country [reference]	Results	Potential for bias
		Information bias	Confounding	Selection bias	Clustering/ non independence	Power/ generalizability	Other
Mexico [10]	Taeniasis Pre: 1.4% (4 cases / 302); Post: 0% *PPR: 0 (95%§CI: undefined) Antibodies to Cysticercosis: Pre: 10.7%; Post: 7.4% PPR: 0.65 (95%CI: 0.39; 1.10)	High: poor tests	High: not controlled; no randomization	Moderate: some losses to follow-up	Ignored/ ignored	Poor / poor 25% participation in village	Clustering of cases noted
Mexico [11]	Taeniasis Pre: 2.0% (matched); 1.1% (unmatched) 6 mo.: 1.0% (matched); 0.5% (unmatched) 42 mo.: 0.7% (matched); 0.5% (unmatched) PPR (6 mo unmatched): 0.47 (95%CI: 0.20-1.11) PPR (42 mo unmatched): 0.44 (95%CI: 0.13-1.47) Seroprevalence (EITB): Pre: 7.1% (matched); 5.7% (unmatched) 6 mo.: 10.7% (matched) 10.1% (unmatched) 42 mo: 1.8% (matched); 2.2% (unmatched) PPR (6 mo unmatched): 1.77 (95%CI: 1.38-2.29) PPR (42 mo unmatched): 0.39 (95%CI: 0.17-0.88)	Low: valid tests	High: not controlled; no randomization	High: many losses to follow- up at 42 months	Ignored/ Ignored even in “individual” analysis	Poor / poor	Increase in prevalence of cysticercosis at 6 months (those positive lost to follow-up?); inappropriate statistical analyses
Guatemala [12]	Taeniasis Pre: 3.5%; Post: 1% PPR: 0.28 (95%CI: 0.15-0.53)	Low: valid test	High: not controlled; no randomization	Modertae: some losses to follow-up	Ignored/ ignored	Poor / poor	Taeniasis incidence rate post treatment: 0.96 / 100 person- years. Side effect of niclosamide not monitored
Mexico [13]	Taeniasis Pre: 0.8%; Post: 0.5%. PPR: 0.64 (95%CI: 0.21-2.02) ¥KAP: improvement of knowledge on life cycle; not defecation or washing hand/food	Low: valid tests, low	High: not controlled; no randomization	High: many losses to follow- up, sampling not described	Ignored/ ignored	Poor / poor	Generally well described study
Kenya [14]	KAP General improvement in knowledge on the life cycle and in practices for pig management (tethering)	Moderate: self-reported questionnaire	High: not controlled, no randomization	Moderate: some losses-to- follow-up	Ignored / well described but unclear if appropriately applied	Good at the individual level, poor otherwise/ unknown	Data in Table does not agree with described paired analyses. Losses to- follow-up may bethose with least knowledge
Tanzania [9]	KAP Improvement pre-post in knowledge about porcine cysticercosis and prevention in both groups. Practice of not eating undercooked pork improved in intervention compared to control group.	Moderate: self-reported questionnaire;	Low: randomized and paired	Moderate: losses to- follow-up (not at the village level)	Group analysis/ paired analysis	Good / good for Mbulu	Study well described. Monitoring alone improves knowledge and practices.
Ecuador [20]	Taeniasis Pre: 2.2%; Post: 0% PPR: 0 (95%CI: undefined)	Very high: Very poor test	High: not controlled; no randomization	High: sampling not described	Ignored/ ignored	Poor / poor	Poor description of study. Unrealistic cost estimate.
Honduras [15]	% NCC among People With Active Epilepsy: Onset pre 1997: 36.7% (27/74) Onset post 1997: 13.9% (5/36) PPR: 0.38 (95%CI: 0.16-0.89)	Low: valid tests	High: not controlled; no randomization	Moderate:mmi gration of new onset seizures may have occurred	Ignored / only new cases of epilepsy included in the follow-up	Poor / Salama county	Unclear if door-to- door survey done every year.

^*PPR: Prevalence Proportion Ratio

^§CI : Confidence Interval

^¥KAP: Knowledge, attitudes and practices