Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38633860›Full record

ReviewInfectious diseases & clinical microbiology2023

Is There a Role for Dark Field Microscopy in the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease?A Narrative Review.

Uğur Önal, Fatma Saraç-Pektaş, İmran Sağlık

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Uğur ÖnalDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Uludağ University School of Medicine, Bursa, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6194-3254
Fatma Saraç-PektaşDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1416-5719
İmran SağlıkDepartment of Microbiology, Uludağ University School of Medicine, Bursa, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0864-4989
Bursa Uludağ Üni̇versi̇tesi̇ · TRAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis of Lyme disease is becoming more common in Turkey. Nonetheless, some physicians are not aware of the diagnostic principles that should be followed when faced with a suspected patient and could use tests that are not recommended, such as darkfield microscopy. Dark field microscopy is a diagnostic technique to visualize the spirochetes that cause Lyme disease; however, it is not recommended for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. One of the main limitations of dark field microscopy is its low sensitivity. Another limitation is its high false-positivity rate, as other microorganisms and cellular debris can be mistaken for spirochetes, leading to a misdiagnosis thatmay result in unnecessary treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to review the literature on the role of dark field microscopy as a diagnostic method for Lyme disease and inform physicians about recommended approaches in line with the recommendations of national or international guidelines. An electronic search of Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed using the following medical subject headings (MeSH) search terms: Lyme borreliosis, Lyme disease,

Indexed as

dark field microscopydiagnosisLyme borreliosisLyme disease

Identifiers

PMID38633860
PMCPMC10986710
OpenAlexW4390605216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.