ArticleEmerging infectious diseases2024
Electronic Health Record Data for Lyme Disease Surveillance, Massachusetts, USA, 2017-2018.
Article in Emerging infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Findings From Electronic Medical Record Review of 2500 Patients Identified With Lyme Disease Diagnoses, Test Orders, and Antibiotic Orders in the SubLyme Network.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Using Electronic Health Records to Enhance Lyme Disease Surveillance: Protocol for the SubLyme Network.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Exploring data-driven algorithms to identify Lyme disease cases in electronic health records.PloS one · 2026Article
- Lyme Disease Incidence in Massachusetts, 2012-2024.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Validation of Algorithms to Detect Acute and Disseminated Lyme Disease in U.S. Administrative Claims Data.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Inhibitors of Lysinoalanine Cross-Linking in the Flagella Hook as Antimicrobials against Spirochetes.ACS chemical biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lyme disease surveillance based on provider and laboratory reports underestimates incidence. We developed an algorithm for automating surveillance using electronic health record data. We identified potential Lyme disease markers in electronic health record data (laboratory tests, diagnosis codes, prescriptions) from January 2017-December 2018 in 2 large practice groups in Massachusetts, USA. We calculated their sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPV), alone and in combination, relative to medical record review. Sensitivities ranged from 57% (95% CI 47%-69%) for immunoassays to 87% (95% CI 70%-100%) for diagnosis codes. PPVs ranged from 53% (95% CI 43%-61%) for diagnosis codes to 58% (95% CI 50%-66%) for immunoassays. The combination of a diagnosis code and antibiotics within 14 days or a positive Western blot had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 86%-100%) and PPV of 82% (95% CI 75%-89%). This algorithm could make Lyme disease surveillance more efficient and consistent.
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.