21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for Lyme borreliosis in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Interpretation of serological assays in Lyme borreliosis requires an understanding of the clinical indications and the limitations of the currently available tests. We therefore systematically reviewed the accuracy of serological tests for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe.

          Methods

          We searched EMBASE en MEDLINE and contacted experts. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for Lyme borreliosis in Europe were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were done by two authors independently. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used a hierarchical summary ROC meta-regression method for the meta-analyses. Potential sources of heterogeneity were test-type, commercial or in-house, Ig-type, antigen type and study quality. These were added as covariates to the model, to assess their effect on test accuracy.

          Results

          Seventy-eight studies evaluating an Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent assay (ELISA) or an immunoblot assay against a reference standard of clinical criteria were included. None of the studies had low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains. Sensitivity was highly heterogeneous, with summary estimates: erythema migrans 50 % (95 % CI 40 % to 61 %); neuroborreliosis 77 % (95 % CI 67 % to 85 %); acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans 97 % (95 % CI 94 % to 99 %); unspecified Lyme borreliosis 73 % (95 % CI 53 % to 87 %). Specificity was around 95 % in studies with healthy controls, but around 80 % in cross-sectional studies. Two-tiered algorithms or antibody indices did not outperform single test approaches.

          Conclusions

          The observed heterogeneity and risk of bias complicate the extrapolation of our results to clinical practice. The usefulness of the serological tests for Lyme disease depends on the pre-test probability and subsequent predictive values in the setting where the tests are being used. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should be prospectively planned cross-sectional studies, done in settings where the test will be used in practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references101

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

          In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group.

            Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are important factors in improving the quality of clinical studies. A standard set of definitions strengthens the consistency and reproducibility of such studies. After the introduction of the original European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions, advances in diagnostic technology and the recognition of areas in need of improvement led to a revision of this document. The revision process started with a meeting of participants in 2003, to decide on the process and to draft the proposal. This was followed by several rounds of consultation until a final draft was approved in 2005. This was made available for 6 months to allow public comment, and then the manuscript was prepared and approved. The revised definitions retain the original classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" invasive fungal disease, but the definition of "probable" has been expanded, whereas the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven invasive fungal disease can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised, whereas the probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only. These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lyme borreliosis.

              Lyme borreliosis (Lyme disease) is caused by spirochaetes of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex, which are transmitted by ticks. The most common clinical manifestation is erythema migrans, which eventually resolves, even without antibiotic treatment. However, the infecting pathogen can spread to other tissues and organs, causing more severe manifestations that can involve a patient's skin, nervous system, joints, or heart. The incidence of this disease is increasing in many countries. Laboratory evidence of infection, mainly serology, is essential for diagnosis, except in the case of typical erythema migrans. Diagnosed cases are usually treated with antibiotics for 2-4 weeks and most patients make an uneventful recovery. No convincing evidence exists to support the use of antibiotics for longer than 4 weeks, or for the persistence of spirochaetes in adequately treated patients. Prevention is mainly accomplished by protecting against tick bites. There is no vaccine available for human beings. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                m.m.leeflang@amc.uva.nl
                w.ang@vumc.nl
                h.berkhout@cwz.nl
                henkbijlmer@me.com
                Wim.vanBortel@ecdc.europa.eu
                a.brandenburg@izore.nl
                n.vanburgel@hagaziekenhuis.nl
                a.p.vandam@olvg.nl
                ramd@regionsjaelland.dk
                Volker.Fingerle@lgl.bayern.de
                Lyme@amc.uva.nl
                jaulhac@unistra.fr
                b.c.meijer@infectielab.nl
                wilfrid.van.pelt@rivm.nl
                j.schellekens@infectielab.nl
                r.spijker-2@umcutrecht.nl
                foekje.stelma@radboudumc.nl
                gerold.stanek@meduniwien.ac.at
                f.m.verduynlunel@umcutrecht.nl
                Herve.Zeller@ecdc.europa.eu
                hein.sprong@rivm.nl
                Journal
                BMC Infect Dis
                BMC Infect. Dis
                BMC Infectious Diseases
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2334
                25 March 2016
                25 March 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 140
                Affiliations
                [ ]VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
                [ ]European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), 171 83 Stockholm, Sweden
                [ ]Izore Centre for Infectious Diseases Friesland, PO Box 21020, 8900 JA Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
                [ ]HagaZiekenhuis, Leyweg 275, 2545 CH The Hague, Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Medical Microbiology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, P.O. Box 95500, 1090 HM Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Slagelse Hospital, Fælledvej 1, 4200 Slagelse, Region Zealand Denmark
                [ ]German National Reference Centre for Borrelia, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Veterinärstraße 2, 85764 Oberschleißheim, Germany
                [ ]Centre for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]National Reference Centre for Borrelia, Department Laboratory of Bacteriology, Strasbourg University Hospital, 1 Place de l’Hôpital, Strasbourg, France
                [ ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Laboratory for Infectious Diseases, PO Box 30039, 9700 RM Groningen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Dutch Cochrane Centre, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care/University Medical Center, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [ ]Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Institute for Hygiene and Applied Immunology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
                [ ]Department of Medical Microbiology University Medical Center Utrecht (UMC), P.O. Box 85500, 3508GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
                Article
                1468
                10.1186/s12879-016-1468-4
                4807538
                27013465
                eccfc977-2fe8-4db3-a6fe-5bf5d15aea05
                © Leeflang et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 29 September 2015
                : 14 March 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000805, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control;
                Award ID: N/A
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000805, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control;
                Award ID: N/A
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                lyme borreliosis,serology,sensitivity and specificity,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article