This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Rodrigo Salinas, MD
Departamento de Ciencias Neurológicas Universidada de Chile Avda Infante 553 Santiago, Chile

Paul Garner, MD
Liverpool, England

Arch Neurol. 1996;53(3):213.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The debate concerning the treatment of neurocysticercosis in the the January 1995 issue of the ARCHIVES illustrates the difficulty clinicians have in drawing conclusions from professional opinion and unsystematic reviews. Hachinski¹ questions whether we can "deprive half the patients of an inexpensive and harmless potential treatment [italics added]," yet there is documented evidence that the treatment can be lethal.² The first step for a proper evaluation of neurocysticercosis treatment is a systematic review of all the available evidence contained in randomized controlled trials. Such a review should ensure that all possible trials are considered where an attempt has been made to draw a randomized comparison between placebo and treatment. This is currently being done as an activity of the Parasitic Diseases Group in the Cochrane Collaboration.³ We invite anyone who has or is currently participating in a randomized controlled trial in the treatment of neurocysticercosis to contact . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?