2014
DOI: 10.9734/bjmmr/2014/5453
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neurocysticercosis and Psycho-Social Trauma

Abstract: This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Author MGV designed the study. Author LJM reviewed the psycho-social history and edited the paper. All authors treated the patient in the hospital and author four and five reviewed the literature on neurocysticercosis and organized neuroimaging results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 14 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A total of 139 full-text papers were selected for a full review of which 63 passed the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the secondary inclusion and exclusion process, the 37 excluded papers were omitted due to little or no relevance to the aims of the review, no access to the papers due to language barriers, no results had been yielded from the paper as of yet, because the study was not based in Africa or due to a low-GRADE score (Wise et al ., 2012; Goldner-Vukov et al ., 2014), leaving 26 papers for final analysis. Figure 2 depicts the review process.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 139 full-text papers were selected for a full review of which 63 passed the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the secondary inclusion and exclusion process, the 37 excluded papers were omitted due to little or no relevance to the aims of the review, no access to the papers due to language barriers, no results had been yielded from the paper as of yet, because the study was not based in Africa or due to a low-GRADE score (Wise et al ., 2012; Goldner-Vukov et al ., 2014), leaving 26 papers for final analysis. Figure 2 depicts the review process.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%