ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Lyme serology in non-endemic countries: Why do we request it and what do we find?
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of tick bites in a Spanish tertiary hospital: a three-year retrospective study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary objectives of our research were to analyze Lyme serology results from pediatric patients, identify the clinical reasons for ordering these tests, and assess the clinical relevance of the serology results in the context of Lyme disease.
methodsOur study, conducted at a reference pediatric hospital in a non-endemic region for Lyme disease, included all pediatric patients for whom Lyme serology was requested. ELISA and Western blot results were documented. Presenting complaints and findings at the time of admission were recorded. Diagnostic tests were categorized as first-step tests if conducted during the initial visit. Subsequent tests, sent due to the inability to establish a diagnosis based on the results of the first-line tests, were defined as second and third-step tests, respectively.
results219 patients, for whom Lyme serology had been requested for varying reasons, were included in our study. The most prevalent complaints and indications observed in the presentations of patients with serology requests were as follows: headache(24.7%), paresis/paresthesia(14.6%), and painful or blurred vision(13.2%). Serology was primarily requested in the presence of neurological(59.4%) and ocular symptoms(13.2%). 68% of the tests were requisitioned during the initial consultation. Nevertheless, it was discerned that no patient received a diagnosis of Lyme disease.
conclusionAccording to the guidelines, Lyme serology should only be performed when there is a realistic possibility of exposure to infected ticks, particularly in patients who have had untreated erythema migrans or those with a history of a tick bite presenting with unexplained joint or neurological symptoms. Our data, in line with these guidelines, suggests that unnecessary Lyme serology testing in non-endemic areas, where exposure is highly unlikely, may lead to false-positive results and unnecessary follow-up testing, as illustrated by the high rate of false-positive ELISAs in our 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.