ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Comparison of a real-time PCR method with serology and blood smear analysis for diagnosis of human anaplasmosis: importance of infection time course for optimal test utilization.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global Prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Cattle: A One Health Perspective, Meta-Analysis and Future Predictions (up to 2035).Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Pooled it
- Human granulocytotropic anaplasmosis-A systematic review and analysis of the literature.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Molecular and serological detection of Anaplasma marginale indicates widespread exposure among crossbred cattle in Karnal (Haryana), India.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Article
- Two Autochthonous Cases of Anaplasmosis, Washington, USA, 2022-2023.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Article
- A Case of Illness Following a Bite by a Male Lone Star Tick (Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Update on North American tick-borne diseases and how to diagnose them.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Review
- Antibodies to Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Patients with Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis Confirmed by Both Polymerase Chain Reaction and Culture.The American journal of medicine · 2025Article
- Culture and other direct detection methods to diagnose human granulocytic anaplasmosis.American journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- Article
- Strategies for the Diagnosis of Granulocytic Anaplasmosis in Two Naturally Infected Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Tick-Borne Pathogens Screening Using a Multiplex Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based Method.Acta parasitologica · 2023Article
- Anaplasmosis in Pennsylvania: Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Outcomes of Patients Diagnosed WithOpen forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Using Serum Specimens for Real-Time PCR-Based Diagnosis of Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis, Canada.Emerging infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Tick-borne zoonoses and commonly used diagnostic methods in human and veterinary medicine.Parasitology research · 2021Review
- Article
- Epidemiological and Clinicopathological Features ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Tick-Borne Diseases in North-Central Wisconsin from 2000-2016.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Use of Routine Complete Blood Count Results to Rule Out Anaplasmosis Without the Need for Specific Diagnostic Testing.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020Article
- Performance Analysis ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Surge in Anaplasmosis Cases in Maine, USA, 2013-2017.Emerging infectious diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anaplasmosis and ehrlichiosis are emerging tick-borne diseases with clinically similar presentations caused by closely related pathogens. Currently, laboratories rely predominantly on blood smear analysis (for the detection of intracellular morulae) and on serologic tests, both of which have recognized limitations, for diagnostic purposes. We compared the performance of a published real-time PCR assay that incorporates melt curve analysis to differentiate Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species with blood smear and serologic methods in an upper Midwest population. Overall, 38.5% of the specimens selected for evaluation had one or more tests that were positive for anaplasmosis. The PCR positivity for all specimens was maximal (21.2%; 29/137) during the early acute phase of illness (0 to 4 days since illness onset) and significantly less frequent (11.5%; 20/174) during later phases (>4 days since illness onset). All positive specimens were Anaplasma phagocytophilum; no Ehrlichia species were identified. The real-time PCR detected 100% of infections that were detected by blood smear analysis (14/14) and broadened the detection window from a maximum of 14 days for smear positivity to 30 days for PCR. Additional infections were detected by real-time PCR in 12.9% (11/85) of smear-negative patients. There was poor agreement between the real-time PCR assay and serologic test results: 19.8% (19/96) and 13.7% (29/212) of seropositive and -negative patients, respectively, were PCR positive. Seropositivity increased with increasing days of illness, demonstrating that serologic detection methods are best utilized during presumed convalescence. Our results indicate that the optimal performance and utilization of laboratory tests for the diagnosis of anaplasmosis require knowledge regarding time of symptom onset or days of illness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.