Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34806121›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2022

Diagnostic performance of the ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 assay in European LB patients: a case-control study.

M E Baarsma, A Vrijlandt, J Ursinus, H L Zaaijer, S Jurriaans, A P van Dam, J W Hovius

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

M E Baarsma *Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. lyme@amsterdamumc.nl.
A Vrijlandt *Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J UrsinusCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H L ZaaijerDepartment of Blood-borne Infections, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S JurriaansDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A P van DamDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J W HoviusCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This retrospective case-control study assesses the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 assay in comparison with the C6-ELISA in European patients with Lyme borreliosis, healthy blood donors, and potentially cross-reactive controls. We included a convenience series of 161 sera from patients with physician-confirmed early localized or disseminated Lyme borreliosis (n = 143), 400 sera from healthy blood donors and 44 sera with potentially cross-reactive antibodies, on which we performed the aforementioned serological assays and the recomLine immunoblot. Diagnostic parameters were compared in various single-tier and two-tier algorithms. The specificities of the C6-ELISA and the ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 were comparable in healthy blood donors (e.g., single-tier permissive: C6: 362/400, 90.5% [87.2-93.2]; VlsE1/pepC10: 361/400, 90.3% [86.9-93.0]). The C6-ELISA had an apparently higher sensitivity in EM sera (e.g., both time points combined: C6: 61/76, 80.3% [69.5-88.5]; VlsE1/pepC10: 54/76, 71.1% [59.5-80.9]), but these differences were all not-significant. Interestingly, the VlsE1/pepC10 assay had a significantly higher specificity in sera with potentially cross-reactive antibodies (e.g., single-tier permissive: C6: 34/44, 77.3% [62.2-88.5]; VlsE1/pepC10: 40/44, 90.9% [78.3-97.5]; p = 0.031). While the areas under the curve for both assays were excellent, that of the C6-ELISA exceeded that of the VlsE1/pepC10 (C6: AUC = 0.925; VlsE1/pepC10: AUC = 0.878; p = 0.003). The novel ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 assay has generally comparable diagnostic parameters to the C6-ELISA with potentially improved specificity in cross-reactive sera. Thus, it is a useful tool for the serodiagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe.

Indexed as

BorreliaBorrelia burgdorferiLyme DiseaseAntibodies, BacterialCase-Control StudiesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySerologic TestsAntibodies, BacterialBorreliaC6Lyme borreliosispepC10SerologyVlsE

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.