ArticleThe American journal of medicine2025
Antibodies to Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Patients with Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis Confirmed by Both Polymerase Chain Reaction and Culture.
Article in The American journal of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of combined detection of IgG/IgM/IgA vs. separate IgG and IgM antibodies to Anaplasma phagocytophilum in culture and PCR-confirmed patients with human granulocytic anaplasmosis.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Cerebrospinal Fluid Findings among Patients with Anaplasmosis and Central Nervous Involvement, Minnesota and Wisconsin, USA.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Seroprevalence ofMicroorganisms · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsSera from patients from a single medical institution in New York State with human granulocytic anaplasmosis established by a positive polymerase chain reaction test (PCR) for Anaplasma phagocytophilum were used to assess the performance of serologic testing. All cases were also confirmed by culture in order to eliminate any false positive PCR samples.
methodsA nested PCR was performed targeting the heat shock operon of A. phagocytophilum. Culture was done using the HL-60 promyelocytic cell line. Serologic testing was performed to detect IgG/A/M using an indirect immunofluorescence assay that incorporated a human isolate of A. phagocytophilum as the source of the antigen.
resultsFrom 1997 to 2009, 38 human granulocytic anaplasmosis patients were evaluated. On the baseline serum sample 21 (55.3%; 95% CI: 38.3%-71.4%) had a positive serologic test; 7 samples (33.1%) were positive at a titer of 80-320 and 14 samples (66.7%) at a titer of at least 640. Sixteen (94.1%) of the 17 with a negative baseline test had follow-up testing performed. All 16 tested positive on a convalescent phase serum sample obtained from 6 to 45 days later.
conclusionPCR testing is the most commonly used direct diagnostic test to diagnose human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Our findings demonstrate that only approximately 55% of the PCR and culture positive cases were also seropositive on blood samples obtained at the same time point, indicating that serologic testing performed at the time of presentation has limited sensitivity. However, all of the 16 evaluable seronegative patients developed antibodies to A. phagocytophilum during convalescence.
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.