ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Towards harmonization of Lyme diagnostics interpretation: external quality assessment using a web-based survey.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaboratory testing plays an important role in diagnosis and clinical management of Lyme borreliosis (LB). While external quality assessments (EQAs) evaluate the technical quality of laboratory diagnostics, the clinical interpretation of laboratory results often remains unassessed. Although specific guidelines are available, different interpretation can result in variations in clinical diagnosis and subsequent management of LB patients. This study aimed to evaluate variations in interpretating LB laboratory diagnostics in relation to the clinical history of the patient.
methodsAn EQA was organized for medical microbiological laboratories (MMLs) in the Netherlands using a web-based survey. The survey consisted of twenty LB case descriptions including laboratory findings. Participants were asked to (i) interpret each case according to their protocols (open-ended), and (ii) rate the likelihood of the case being active LB (multiple-choice). Six LB diagnostics experts determined the baseline and scored participants' answers on a 1-10 scale.
resultsOf the 50 invited MMLs, 38 (76.0%) completed the survey. The overall mean score was 8.8 (range: 7.2 - 9.8). For the multiple-choice questions, the mean score was 9.6 (range: 8.4 - 10) and for open-ended questions this was 8.0 (range: 5.6 - 9.6). Lower scores were obtained for low-incidence manifestations.
conclusionsThis EQA showed that interpreting LB laboratory results in relation to the clinical information was good and increased awareness among participants to challenges of LB diagnosis and treatment. Training and education could improve interpretation skills. This EQA might be exemplary for future harmonization efforts for (pan-European) clinical evaluation of LB diagnostics. As a potential future approach, supplementing guidelines with an artificial intelligence-based clinical support system could aid medical microbiologists and physicians in decision making, especially for rare manifestations.
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.