ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Optimizing Exclusion Criteria for Clinical Trials of Persistent Lyme Disease Using Real-World Data.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Epidemiology, diagnosis and emerging therapies for Lyme disease of the Northern Hemisphere.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Biomarkers over Time: From Visual Contrast Sensitivity to Transcriptomics in Differentiating Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A pilot study of disulfiram for individuals with persistent symptoms despite prior antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesAlthough eligibility criteria for clinical trials significantly impact study outcomes, these criteria are often established without scientific justification, leading to delayed recruitment, small sample sizes, and limited study generalizability. Persistent Lyme disease (PLD) presents unique challenges due to symptom variability, inconsistent treatment responses, and the lack of reliable biomarkers, underscoring the need for scientifically justified eligibility criteria.
objectiveThis study examines the effects of commonly used enrollment criteria on sample yield in PLD clinical trials using real-world data (RWD) from the MyLymeData patient registry. The study also compares the effects of these criteria on enrollment for PLD versus acute Lyme disease (ALD) trials and evaluates the scientific rationale for each criterion.
methodsData from 4183 Lyme disease patients enrolled in the MyLymeData registry were analyzed to assess the prevalence and cumulative impact of various criteria on sample yield. A comparative analysis of cohorts with PLD (n = 3589) versus ALD (n = 594) was conducted to identify differences in sample attrition.
resultsIn a large PLD cohort study, we found that current commonly used eligibility criteria would exclude approximately 90% of patients, significantly limiting study generalizability. Substantial differences in sample attrition between PLD and ALD cohorts highlight the need for tailored criteria. The strength of scientific justification varied widely among criteria.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the importance of using RWD to optimize eligibility criteria in PLD clinical trials. By providing insights into the balance between sample attrition and scientific justification, researchers can enhance trial feasibility, generalizability, and robustness. Our RWD sample demonstrates that researchers could substantially increase the sample yield from 10% to 64% by loosening restrictions on coinfections and misdiagnoses of chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia syndrome, and psychiatric conditions.
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.