Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
1996
DOI: 10.3201/eid0202.960211
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improved Serodiagnostic Testing for Lyme Disease: Results of a Multicenter Serologic Evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0
2

Year Published

1997
1997
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
21
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In a comparison of the serologic results of two EIA methods at CDC and serologic results on the same specimens at five academic centers, the EIA methods employing whole cell sonicate and flagella antigen at CDC were shown to have unacceptably low specificity owing to setting the cutoff threshold too low (15). One academic laboratory had a low sensitivity (49%) and poor precision (79%) for case samples.…”
Section: Diagnostic Serologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a comparison of the serologic results of two EIA methods at CDC and serologic results on the same specimens at five academic centers, the EIA methods employing whole cell sonicate and flagella antigen at CDC were shown to have unacceptably low specificity owing to setting the cutoff threshold too low (15). One academic laboratory had a low sensitivity (49%) and poor precision (79%) for case samples.…”
Section: Diagnostic Serologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We thank the commercial laboratories responding to our quesDue to the large number of EIAs ordered by practicing physi- and its specificity was 82% [5] and there were 300 cases of LD each year (estimate on the basis of official reported cases…”
Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, current serodiagnostic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are not highly sensitive and selective, hindering detection (1,3,5,8,12,14,29,32,38,41,50,67,70,74). Definitive serological diagnosis depends on a complex, expensive immunoblot analysis (14,16,31,35,38,40,41,51,56,58,72,74).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Definitive serological diagnosis depends on a complex, expensive immunoblot analysis (14,16,31,35,38,40,41,51,56,58,72,74).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%