Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40562745›Full record

ArticleEmerging infectious diseases2025

Lyme Disease Testing Practices, Wisconsin, USA, 2016-2019.

Kiersten J Kugeler, Erica Scotty, Austin Earley, Alison F Hinckley, Sarah A Hook, Courtney C Nawrocki, Alexandra M Linz, Jennifer Meece, Anna M Schotthoefer

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Kiersten J Kugeler
Erica Scotty
Austin Earley
Alison F Hinckley
Sarah A Hook
Courtney C Nawrocki
Alexandra M Linz
Jennifer Meece
Anna M Schotthoefer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Positive laboratory results are increasingly used for Lyme disease surveillance in the United States. We found 6%-15% of persons with a positive test each year tested positive in a prior year; repeat testing frequency increased with patient age. Repeat testing of persons with previous seropositivity could affect surveillance data interpretation.

Indexed as

Lyme DiseaseAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBorrelia burgdorferiChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHistory, 21st CenturyHumansMaleMiddle AgedWisconsinYoung AdultbacteriaBorrelia burgdorferilaboratory testingLyme diseasesurveillanceUnited Statesvector-borne infectionsWisconsinzoonoses

Identifiers

PMID40562745
PMCPMC12205465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.