In the letter “Reproducibility of Diagnostic Criteria for Ventricular Neurocysticercosis,” the authors manifest their unhappiness with the results of the systematic review we conducted to assess reliability of the revised Del Brutto’s set of diagnostic criteria for ventricular neurocysticercosis (NCC), mainly concerning specificity. Specificity is the ability of a test to appropriately detect as negative a condition that does not exist in a given patient. According to the revised Del Brutto’s set of diagnostic criteria for NCC, only four of the 41 reviewed patients with other ventricular infections would be erroneously diagnosed as definitive NCC. These four false-positive diagnoses resulted from the presence of two major neuroimaging findings (ventricular cystic lesion plus additional parenchymal lesions) together with clinical/exposure criteria. None of the 41 cases had any absolute criteria for NCC, nor any confirmative neuroimaging criteria, and as such no other definitive diagnoses of NCC would be made using our criteria. This means that for this set we found a specificity of 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.9–96.8%), as detailed in our systematic review. We don’t understand how specificity was calculated as 31.7% or 55% by Fleury et al. Perhaps they included “probable” cases as positively diagnosed...