Stool Tests for Parasites and Their Limits

This page looks at how parasites are found in the laboratory: the classic stool examination for eggs and parasites, antigen tests, molecular (DNA) panels, blood antibody tests and scans. It sets one point from a 2026 integrative-oncology presentation — that standard stool tests miss most parasites — beside the published research on how often each test finds an infection that is really there.

What the Presentation Said
What a Standard Stool Test Actually Is
Is There a Source for “Less Than 4%” or “Less Than 10%”?
One Sample or Three: What the Studies Measured
Why Eggs and Larvae Come and Go
Antigen Tests for Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Amoebae
Molecular (Polymerase Chain Reaction) Stool Panels
Blood Antibody Tests: Past or Present Infection?
Scans for Parasites That Live in Tissue
Commercial Stool and Microbiome Panels
How the Claim Compares With the Research
What Is Not Known
Connections
Key Research Papers
Featured Videos

What the Presentation Said

Testing for parasites came up at several points in the presentation. Its points, in summary:

The speaker said the clinic runs a stool test on every patient, looking for blood, undigested food and bacteria as well as parasites.
A slide was described as showing that standard stool tests detect less than 4% of parasitic species, so a negative stool test does not mean there are no parasites. Later the speaker gave a second figure: that less than 10% of parasite cases are detected by standard stool tests. No study was named for either number.
Parasites were said not to release eggs or larvae consistently (intermittent shedding), which produces false-negative results, and to migrate and hide in organs.
Blood antibody tests were described as unable to tell a past infection from a current one.
Molecular tests (polymerase chain reaction (PCR)) were described as more specific but costly and available only in specialised laboratories.
Scans — computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound — were described as useful for parasites that invade tissue and form cysts or lesions.
The speaker said conventional laboratories can lack the tools to identify every species, that some doctors do not think of parasites and so never order a test, and that a clinical approach combines symptoms, exposure history and more than one test, with repeat testing or molecular testing for higher accuracy.
In answer to an audience question, the speaker pointed to commercial stool polymerase chain reaction panels sold by specialised laboratories, and to artificial-intelligence analysis of stool samples as a coming advance.

The product and laboratory names given in the presentation are left out here, as on every page of this site. The artificial-intelligence point is covered on the sibling page Artificial Intelligence for Finding Parasites in Stool.

What a Standard Stool Test Actually Is

The test most people mean by “a stool test for parasites” is the ova and parasite examination, usually shortened to O&P. “Ova” means eggs. A trained microscopist looks at the stool in two ways: a concentrate, in which the sample is spun down so eggs, larvae and cysts collect in a small volume, and a permanent stained smear, a thin film dyed so that single-celled parasites (protozoa such as amoebae and Giardia) can be told apart by their internal structure.

The 2018 laboratory guide of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) lists the O&P with a permanent stained smear as the test for a broad group of intestinal parasites — amoebae, Giardia, Dientamoeba, roundworms, whipworm, hookworm, tapeworms and flukes. The same guide lists separate tests for organisms the routine O&P handles poorly (Miller and colleagues, 2018):

Cryptosporidium and Giardia: antigen tests (enzyme immunoassay), fluorescent-antibody stains or molecular tests.
Microsporidia: a special modified trichrome stain.
Pinworm (Enterobius): not a stool test at all, but a sticky paddle or clear tape pressed against the skin around the anus, because the female worm lays her eggs there rather than in the stool.
Strongyloides: special larval methods (such as Baermann concentration or agar-plate culture) and blood antibody tests.

So “standard stool test” covers several different tests, and part of the reason an infection can be missed is that the test for it was never requested. An early study from a university laboratory screened every stool sent for O&P over 12 months with a fluorescent antibody for Cryptosporidium: 0.86% of 1,516 patients were positive, and in the immunocompetent patients nobody had suspected the infection, so it would not have been found without the added screening test (Garcia and colleagues, 1988).

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s laboratory guidance for stool collection also lists substances that make a specimen unsatisfactory for examination: antacids, kaolin, mineral oil, barium or bismuth (7–10 days to clear), antimicrobial drugs (2–3 weeks) and gallbladder dyes (3 weeks).

Is There a Source for “Less Than 4%” or “Less Than 10%”?

No published study was found that reports standard stool tests detecting less than 4% of parasite species, or less than 10% of parasite cases. The presentation gave the two numbers at different points and they describe different things — a share of species and a share of cases — and neither was tied to a source.

What the research does report is that the sensitivity of microscopy (the share of true infections it finds) varies widely with the parasite, the method, the number of samples and how heavy the infection is. Some examples from the studies on this page:

Very low for some organisms. In a French hospital laboratory, microscopy found Dientamoeba fragilis in 14.1% of the cases that a molecular panel found, and Blastocystis in 44.2% (Autier and colleagues, 2020). A review of strongyloidiasis reports that a single conventional stool examination fails to find Strongyloides larvae in up to 70% of cases (Siddiqui and Berk, 2001).
Moderate for others. In the same French study microscopy found 60.7% of Giardia and 50.0% of Entamoeba histolytica infections detected by polymerase chain reaction.
Fairly high for common worms when the infection is heavy. A meta-analysis of soil-transmitted worm tests estimated that the widely used Kato-Katz egg-count method found 74–95% of roundworm, whipworm and hookworm infections where infections were heavy, falling to 53–80% where they were light (Nikolay and colleagues, 2014).
Higher with more samples. One specimen found about three-quarters of the infections that two or three specimens found in a high-prevalence clinic (Cartwright, 1999).

These figures support the general point that a single negative O&P does not rule out every parasite. They do not support a figure as low as 4% or 10% for stool testing as a whole.

One Sample or Three: What the Studies Measured

How many stool samples to examine has been argued about for decades, and the research points in two directions depending on the setting.

Studies that found extra samples add a lot

Northern California, 1995. In the records of a large health plan’s regional laboratory, compared with one examination, three examinations raised the yield by 22.7% for Entamoeba histolytica, 11.3% for Giardia and 31.1% for Dientamoeba fragilis. Thirteen patients with E. histolytica (10.4%) needed four to nine examinations before the parasite was seen. The authors concluded that a single examination misses many protozoan infections in people with symptoms (Hiatt and colleagues, 1995).
A high-prevalence clinic, 1999. In 2,704 examinations from 1,374 patients, the first specimen was enough in 75.9% of evaluable cases; two specimens raised that to 92%; the third added information on 8% of occasions. The author concluded that two independently collected specimens were needed in high-prevalence populations (Cartwright, 1999).

A study that found extra samples add little in a low-prevalence hospital

A US university hospital, 1992. Of 2,015 O&P examinations, 6.7% were positive, from 75 patients; most were found on the first examination. Very few pathogens were found in stools from patients who had already been in hospital for more than three days. The laboratory adopted a policy of one examination per outpatient visit and none after three days in hospital unless the clinician asked; over six months none of the rejected specimens later examined on request was positive (Morris and colleagues, 1992).

What the laboratory guidance says

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s stool-collection guidance states that collection may need to be repeated if the first examination is negative and that, if possible, three specimens passed at intervals of two to three days are examined. The IDSA/ASM guide notes that three specimens collected over 7–10 days was the historical recommendation, and describes a stepwise option: a second specimen only if the first is negative and the person still has symptoms, and a third only if symptoms continue. It adds that Giardia immunoassays are sensitive enough that a single specimen may be enough, and that no data exist on how many specimens are needed to rule out infection when a molecular test is used (Miller and colleagues, 2018). The guide was updated again in 2024 (Miller and colleagues, 2024).

Why Eggs and Larvae Come and Go

The presentation’s point that parasites do not shed eggs or larvae steadily is well documented in the research literature.

Strongyloides. A review of diagnosis explains that this threadworm is hard to find because the number of worms is low and larval output is irregular; this is why a single stool examination misses up to 70% of cases (Siddiqui and Berk, 2001). A systematic review of 143 studies concluded that microscopy-based techniques are not sensitive enough, particularly in long-standing infections, and that several specimens collected on different days improve detection (Requena-Méndez and colleagues, 2013).
Light infections. Egg-counting methods depend on the number of eggs in the small amount of stool examined. The meta-analysis above found Kato-Katz sensitivity fell where infections were light (Nikolay and colleagues, 2014) — which means that as deworming programmes lower worm burdens, microscopy misses a larger share of the remaining infections.
Protozoa. The Northern California records showed some amoebic infections seen only on the fourth to ninth examination (Hiatt and colleagues, 1995).

Why the research matters for Strongyloides in particular: the same review notes that in people given long-term corticosteroid (steroid) medicines, this infection can turn into “hyperinfection”, with reported mortality as high as 87%, and that a specific and sensitive test for finding latent infection before immunosuppression was lacking at the time (Siddiqui and Berk, 2001). The sibling page Parasites Misdiagnosed as Other Diseases covers this hazard further.

The presentation’s further statement that parasites “hide” in organs is true for parasites whose life cycle takes them into tissue (tapeworm cysts, liver flukes, Toxoplasma, Trichinella), which a stool test is not designed to find. No research was found showing intestinal parasites hiding in a tooth.

Antigen Tests for Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Amoebae

An antigen test looks for a protein made by the parasite rather than for the parasite itself, using antibodies fixed to a strip, plate or card. It needs no microscopist. Antigen tests exist mainly for three organisms: Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Entamoeba histolytica.

Under laboratory conditions. A rapid card test evaluated on known positive and negative specimens had a sensitivity of 93.5% for Giardia and 98.8% for Cryptosporidium, with 100% specificity for both. Its false negatives for Giardia came from specimens with few parasites or with only the active (trophozoite) form. The authors noted that the full O&P and special stains remain options for people who still have symptoms after a negative result (Garcia and colleagues, 2003).
Antigen tests do not remove the need for repeat samples. In paired samples from 103 patients, a Giardia antigen assay found the infection in both samples in 80% of infected patients, compared with 67% for the O&P; two specimens by either method were needed to reach a sensitivity above 90% (Hanson and Cartwright, 2001).
Results vary by organism. A study of 160 stool samples, using microscopy and polymerase chain reaction as the reference, found that rapid strip tests detected 90–97% of Giardia infections but 70–72% of Cryptosporidium and 62.5% of Entamoeba histolytica infections (Goñi and colleagues, 2012).

The point: each antigen test covers one to three named organisms. A negative antigen test says nothing about worms or about other protozoa.

Molecular (Polymerase Chain Reaction) Stool Panels

polymerase chain reaction (PCR) copies a short stretch of an organism’s DNA millions of times so that even a few organisms can be detected. A multiplex polymerase chain reaction panel tests one sample for many organisms at once. Such panels are used in clinical laboratories — the meta-analysis below pooled 11 studies of two of them — but a 2026 study from Japan still describes their cost and restricted coverage, especially for parasites, as limits to routine use (Oshiro and colleagues, 2026).

What the studies found

Higher yield for protozoa. In a five-month prospective study of 586 samples in a French hospital laboratory, microscopy found parasites in 95 samples and a protozoa polymerase chain reaction panel in 207. Polymerase chain reaction on the first sample was about as sensitive as microscopy on several samples (Autier and colleagues, 2020). That panel covered six protozoa and no worms.
High accuracy for the pathogens on the panel. A meta-analysis of 11 studies and 7,085 stool samples found that two widely used gastrointestinal polymerase chain reaction panels had specificity of at least 98% for all 16 pathogens examined (bacteria, viruses and parasites), with high overall accuracy for almost all of them (Chang and colleagues, 2021).
A positive result is not always the cause of illness. In Brussels, a multiplex polymerase chain reaction panel found an enteric pathogen in 24.2% of children without diarrhoea, compared with 10.3% by routine methods, and missed some bacteria that culture found. The authors concluded that high positivity in children without symptoms makes results hard to interpret (Tilmanne and colleagues, 2019).

The limits

A polymerase chain reaction panel finds only the organisms it was designed to find; the French protozoa panel, for example, covered six protozoa and no worms (Autier and colleagues, 2020).
Detection does not by itself show that an organism is causing symptoms (Tilmanne and colleagues, 2019).
As noted above, there are no data on how many specimens are needed to rule out infection by molecular testing (Miller and colleagues, 2018).

Blood Antibody Tests: Past or Present Infection?

Serology means testing blood for antibodies — proteins the immune system makes after meeting a parasite. For parasites that live in tissue rather than the gut, or that rarely appear in stool, it is often the main laboratory test.

The presentation said antibody tests cannot separate a past infection from a current one. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s laboratory guidance for parasite antibody testing supports this. It states that, in general, detecting antibodies to a parasite indicates infection at some indeterminate time and not necessarily a current infection; that in a person native to an area where the parasite is common, antibodies may reflect only a past infection; and that antibody levels fall slowly after cure, lasting at least six months to many years, so they are not real-time indicators of cure. The same page reports other limits:

Most parasite antibody tests in the United States use reagents that are not standardised and are made in-house, which has often produced different results from different laboratories.
No external proficiency-testing programme exists for any parasitic disease except Toxoplasma.
Some tests detect only certain species: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describes a patient whose serum was reported negative and whose stool showed no parasites, while the urine contained eggs of Schistosoma haematobium; a species-specific blot at U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was positive.

The research on Strongyloides shows both the value and the limits of antibody tests. A systematic review found serology useful but noted it may overestimate infection because of cross-reactions with other worms and its difficulty distinguishing recent from past or cured infection (Requena-Méndez and colleagues, 2013). In a 2023 study in indigenous communities in Misiones, Argentina, with 327 stool and 226 blood samples, a prototype rapid antibody test found 86.8% of the infections detected by stool methods; a statistical model that does not assume any test is perfect estimated the rapid test’s sensitivity at 94.3%, stool methods as the most specific (95.9%), and the true prevalence at 30.7%, higher than the 25.7% found by stool methods alone (Cimino and colleagues, 2025).

Scans for Parasites That Live in Tissue

The presentation said that computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound can be useful for parasites that invade tissue and form cysts. The guidelines agree. For neurocysticercosis — cysts of the pork tapeworm larva in the brain — the 2017 IDSA and American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene guideline states that the first evaluation includes a careful history, a physical examination and brain imaging, and recommends a specific antibody blot (the enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot) as a confirmatory test; it describes enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays using crude antigen as having poor sensitivity and specificity (White and colleagues, 2018). In this disease a stool test plays only a side role: it looks for the adult intestinal tapeworm, which sheds the eggs that, when swallowed, cause cysticercosis (White and colleagues, 2018).

The same guideline makes a point that links scans back to stool testing. Because people with neurocysticercosis are often treated with steroids, it discusses strategies to prevent Strongyloides hyperinfection, and notes that stool studies for Strongyloides require specialised methods such as Baermann concentration and that their sensitivity is poor even with multiple samples (White and colleagues, 2018).

Other tissue parasites usually diagnosed by imaging plus antibody tests include the hydatid cysts of Echinococcus in the liver and lungs. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that people who have had surgery for a hydatid cyst almost always have detectable antibodies, but may have been negative before surgery — another reason a negative antibody test does not rule out a tissue cyst.

Commercial Stool and Microbiome Panels

The presentation pointed listeners to commercial stool panels sold by specialised laboratories that test for parasites alongside gut bacteria, “dysbiosis”, fermentation and “leaky gut”. No product is named here.

What the published research covers:

The clinical multiplex polymerase chain reaction panels that have been evaluated in diagnostic-accuracy studies and meta-analyses (Chang and colleagues, 2021; Autier and colleagues, 2020) are tests for a defined list of organisms that cause diarrhoea. Their accuracy figures apply to those organisms only.
No peer-reviewed study comparing a direct-to-consumer or functional-medicine stool panel with a reference method for parasites was found among the records reviewed for this page. That does not show the panels are inaccurate; it means no published accuracy data for their parasite results were located.
Stool markers of “dysbiosis” or “leaky gut” are not part of the IDSA/ASM laboratory guide for diagnosing intestinal parasites (Miller and colleagues, 2018).
Any highly sensitive DNA test raises the problem seen in the Brussels study: organisms found in people without symptoms (Tilmanne and colleagues, 2019). Blastocystis and Dientamoeba, often reported on such panels, are common in healthy people, and whether they cause disease is debated (see the site’s Blastocystis and Dientamoeba fragilis pages).

Artificial-intelligence reading of stool samples, which the presentation called a coming leap, is covered on Artificial Intelligence for Finding Parasites in Stool. Decisions about which tests to order belong with a clinician.

How the Claim Compares With the Research

Supported by the research

A single negative stool examination does not rule out a parasite. Studies report that one O&P misses a meaningful share of protozoan infections (Hiatt and colleagues, 1995; Cartwright, 1999) and up to 70% of Strongyloides infections (Siddiqui and Berk, 2001).
Eggs and larvae are shed irregularly, and light infections are missed more often (Nikolay and colleagues, 2014; Requena-Méndez and colleagues, 2013).
Antibody tests often cannot tell a past infection from a current one, as stated in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s laboratory guidance.
Imaging is central for tissue parasites such as neurocysticercosis (White and colleagues, 2018).
Combining exposure history, symptoms and more than one test is how the laboratory guidance describes the work-up (Miller and colleagues, 2018).

Supported only in part

Polymerase chain reaction panels are more sensitive for the protozoa they cover (Autier and colleagues, 2020), but they cover a fixed list, a positive result can be found in people without symptoms (Tilmanne and colleagues, 2019), and cost and restricted coverage are still reported as limits to routine use (Oshiro and colleagues, 2026).
That a conventional laboratory “lacks the tools” is true for some organisms if the specific test is not ordered (Cryptosporidium, microsporidia, Strongyloides, pinworm), but those tests exist in routine laboratory guidance.

No source found

No published study was found reporting that standard stool tests detect less than 4% of parasite species, or less than 10% of parasite cases. The measured sensitivities above range from about 14% to more than 90%, depending on the organism, method and number of samples.
No published accuracy study was found for the parasite results of commercial functional-medicine stool panels.
No research was found on intestinal parasites hiding in a tooth.

Not addressed by this research

Nothing in the testing literature bears on whether parasites cause cancer. That question is covered on Parasites Classified as Cancer-Causing Agents and Are Parasites Inside Every Tumor?

What Is Not Known

How many stool samples are needed to rule out infection when a molecular test is used — the IDSA/ASM guide states that no data exist (Miller and colleagues, 2018).
The true sensitivity of any stool test, because there is no perfect reference test; studies increasingly use statistical models that estimate accuracy without assuming one (Nikolay and colleagues, 2014; Cimino and colleagues, 2025).
Whether finding organisms such as Blastocystis or Dientamoeba by polymerase chain reaction in a person with vague symptoms explains those symptoms.
How well commercial direct-to-consumer stool panels detect parasites compared with reference methods.
How often people with cancer, specifically, carry intestinal parasites that routine testing misses — no study of this was found for this page.

Connections

Key Research Papers

Miller JM, Binnicker MJ, Campbell S, Carroll KC, Chapin KC, Gilligan PH, Gonzalez MD, Jerris RC, Kehl SC, Patel R, Pritt BS, Richter SS, Robinson-Dunn B, Schwartzman JD, Snyder JW, Telford S 3rd, Theel ES, Thomson RB Jr, Weinstein MP, Yao JD. A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2018 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Society for Microbiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(6):e1-e94. PubMed PMID: 29955859
Miller JM, Binnicker MJ, Campbell S, Carroll KC, Chapin KC, Gonzalez MD, Harrington A, Jerris RC, Kehl SC, Leal SM Jr, Patel R, Pritt BS, Richter SS, Robinson-Dunn B, Snyder JW, Telford S 3rd, Theel ES, Thomson RB Jr, Weinstein MP, Yao JD. Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2024 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM). Clin Infect Dis. 2024:ciae104. PubMed PMID: 38442248
Hiatt RA, Markell EK, Ng E. How many stool examinations are necessary to detect pathogenic intestinal protozoa? Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995;53(1):36-9. PubMed PMID: 7625530
Cartwright CP. Utility of multiple-stool-specimen ova and parasite examinations in a high-prevalence setting. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37(8):2408-11. PubMed PMID: 10405376
Morris AJ, Wilson ML, Reller LB. Application of rejection criteria for stool ovum and parasite examinations. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30(12):3213-6. PubMed PMID: 1452704
Garcia LS, Brewer TC, Bruckner DA. Incidence of Cryptosporidium in all patients submitting stool specimens for ova and parasite examination: monoclonal antibody IFA method. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988;11(1):25-7. PubMed PMID: 3064957
Siddiqui AA, Berk SL. Diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(7):1040-7. PubMed PMID: 11528578
Requena-Méndez A, Chiodini P, Bisoffi Z, Buonfrate D, Gotuzzo E, Muñoz J. The laboratory diagnosis and follow up of strongyloidiasis: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(1):e2002. PubMed PMID: 23350004
Nikolay B, Brooker SJ, Pullan RL. Sensitivity of diagnostic tests for human soil-transmitted helminth infections: a meta-analysis in the absence of a true gold standard. Int J Parasitol. 2014;44(11):765-74. PubMed PMID: 24992655
Garcia LS, Shimizu RY, Novak S, Carroll M, Chan F. Commercial assay for detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum antigens in human fecal specimens by rapid solid-phase qualitative immunochromatography. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(1):209-12. PubMed PMID: 12517850
Hanson KL, Cartwright CP. Use of an enzyme immunoassay does not eliminate the need to analyze multiple stool specimens for sensitive detection of Giardia lamblia. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39(2):474-7. PubMed PMID: 11158092
Goñi P, Martín B, Villacampa M, García A, Seral C, Castillo FJ, Clavel A. Evaluation of an immunochromatographic dip strip test for simultaneous detection of Cryptosporidium spp, Giardia duodenalis, and Entamoeba histolytica antigens in human faecal samples. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31(8):2077-82. PubMed PMID: 22262367
Autier B, Gangneux JP, Robert-Gangneux F. Evaluation of [product name omitted] gastrointestinal parasite panel assay for Protozoa Detection in Stool Samples: A Retrospective and Prospective Study. Microorganisms. 2020;8(4):569. PubMed PMID: 32326453
Chang LJ, Hsiao CJ, Chen B, Liu TY, Ding J, Hsu WT, Su-Ortiz V, Chen ST, Su KY, Wu HP, Lee CC. Accuracy and comparison of two rapid multiplex PCR tests for gastroenteritis pathogens: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2021;8(1):e000553. PubMed PMID: 33648983
Tilmanne A, Martiny D, Quach C, Wautier M, Vandenberg O, Lepage P, Hallin M. Enteropathogens in paediatric gastroenteritis: comparison of routine diagnostic and molecular methods. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25(12):1519-1524. PubMed PMID: 31374260
Oshiro Y, Kawashima A, Akashi M, Yanagawa Y, Shimodaira K, Matsuzawa H, Nemoto T, Shimogawara R, Kurokawa M, Ando N, Uemura H, Aoki T, Yamamoto K, Akiyama J, Mizushima D, Kitazawa T, Gatanaga H, Yagita K, Watanabe K. Diagnostic accuracy of [product name omitted]: simultaneous detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium by fluorescent antibody microscopy. Trop Med Health. 2026;54(1):27. PubMed PMID: 41593455
Cimino R, Senti EC, García T, Ciotta S, Nieves E, Goizueta C, Noordin R, Anuar NS, Periago V. Diagnostic performance of a Strongyloides IgG4 Rapid Test in detecting human Strongyloides stercoralis infection. Parasit Vectors. 2025;19(1):31. PubMed PMID: 41382162
White AC Jr, Coyle CM, Rajshekhar V, Singh G, Hauser WA, Mohanty A, Garcia HH, Nash TE. Diagnosis and Treatment of Neurocysticercosis: 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH). Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(8):e49-e75. PubMed PMID: 29481580