ArticleAtencion primaria2018
[Usefulness of serological studies for the early diagnosis of Lyme disease in Primary Health Care Centres].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global seroprevalence and sociodemographic characteristics ofBMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of an early diagnosis of Lyme disease (LD) in Primary Health Care Centres (PHCC) using the ELISA test as serological screening technique.
methodsA retrospective study (2006-2013) was performed in order to determine the anti-Borrelia seropositivity in 2,842 people at risk of having LD. The possible relationship between the environment and the area of residence with anti-Borrelia seropositivity was also studied according to the origin of the specimens (PHCC/Hospital).
resultsOverall, 15.2% of samples were positive to Borrelia spp. Seropositivity was significantly higher in samples sent by PHCC doctors than those sent by Hospital doctors. Seropositivity was significantly higher in rural than in urban populations and in those who live in mountainous or flat areas. The percentage of seropositivity has increased over the years.
conclusionsThe role of the PHCC doctor is essential for achieving an early diagnosis of Lyme disease, as a higher percentage of seropositives was detected in samples submitted from PHCC. Furthermore, most early localised LD patients were diagnosed in PHCC, avoiding the appearance of sequelae. Therefore, detection of Borrelia specific antibodies using an ELISA assay is a useful screening test for patients at risk of LD.
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.