ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021
Diagnostic Performance of the Novel BioPlex Lyme Serological Assays in European Patients with Lyme Disease.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic validation of novel Borrelia antigens discovered by whole-proteome microarray: Advancing early detection and test of cure for Lyme disease.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of different standard and modified two-tier testing strategies for the laboratory diagnosis of lyme borreliosis in a European setting.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- A Step-by-Step Guide to Selecting an Optimal Cut-Off Value Based on the Receiver Operating Characteristic and Youden Index in Methods Designed to Diagnose Lyme Disease.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of the ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 assay in European LB patients: a case-control study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serodiagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) comes with several drawbacks, among which is limited sensitivity in early disease. This study assesses the sensitivity and specificity of the novel BioPlex 2200 Lyme IgG and Lyme IgM assays. It also assesses potential improvements to the assays through receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The BioPlex assays were performed on sera of 158 Dutch patients with physician-confirmed LB (both early localized and disseminated), 800 healthy blood donors from the Netherlands, and 90 cross-reactive controls. The BioPlex (Biopl) assays were compared with two commercial enzyme immunoassays (Euroimmun [Eur]/C6-ELISA) and one immunoblot (recomLine). The highest sensitivity in early LB was achieved with the BioPlex assays, which outperformed the Euroimmun and C6-ELISA (Biopl: 81/88, 92.1%; Eur: 64/88, 72.7%; C6: 72/88, 81.8%). Sensitivity of all assays was comparable in patients with disseminated LB. The BioPlex assays were outperformed in terms of specificity (all healthy blood donors, Biopl: 571/800, 71.4%; Eur: 711/800, 88.9%; C6: 727/800, 90.9%), but further analyses showed promising avenues following cutoff optimization. ROC analysis showed that 2/6 antigens of the combined BioPlex IgG and IgM assays had significantly higher areas under the curve (AUCs) than those of the other analyses. Potential modified versions of the assays based on these antigens largely outperformed the Euroimmun and C6-ELISA in EM patients (Biopl: 81/80, 92.1%) while maintaining a comparable or even higher specificity (Biopl: 714/800, 89.3%). The BioPlex 2200 Lyme IgG and Lyme IgM assays are promising tools for the serodiagnosis of early LB, with the potential to be used as a standalone test. Further research is necessary to validate the findings of this discovery cohort.
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.