Table 3.

Research on porcine cysticercosis and estimated true prevalence 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]

Abbreviation: na not applicable

^aConfidence interval

^bCredible interval

^cSensitivity and specificity of carcass examination based on Dorny et al. [62]

^dSensitivity and specificity of antigen-ELISA based on Dorny et al. [62]

^eCases of porcine cysticercosis