| 1. |
- Aase, Audun, et al.
(författare)
-
Validate or falsify: Lessons learned from a microscopy method claimed to be useful for detecting Borrelia and Babesia organisms in human blood
- 2016
-
Ingår i: INFECTIOUS DISEASES. - : TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. - 2374-4235 .- 2374-4243. ; 48:6, s. 411-419
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background A modified microscopy protocol (the LM-method) was used to demonstrate what was interpreted as Borrelia spirochetes and later also Babesia sp., in peripheral blood from patients. The method gained much publicity, but was not validated prior to publication, which became the purpose of this study using appropriate scientific methodology, including a control group. Methods Blood from 21 patients previously interpreted as positive for Borrelia and/or Babesia infection by the LM-method and 41 healthy controls without known history of tick bite were collected, blinded and analysed for these pathogens by microscopy in two laboratories by the LM-method and conventional method, respectively, by PCR methods in five laboratories and by serology in one laboratory. Results Microscopy by the LM-method identified structures claimed to be Borrelia- and/or Babesia in 66% of the blood samples of the patient group and in 85% in the healthy control group. Microscopy by the conventional method for Babesia only did not identify Babesia in any samples. PCR analysis detected Borrelia DNA in one sample of the patient group and in eight samples of the control group; whereas Babesia DNA was not detected in any of the blood samples using molecular methods. Conclusions The structures interpreted as Borrelia and Babesia by the LM-method could not be verified by PCR. The method was, thus, falsified. This study underlines the importance of doing proper test validation before new or modified assays are introduced.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jonsson Henningsson, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Laboratory Methods for Detection of Infectious Agents and Serological Response in Humans With Tick-Borne Infections : A Systematic Review of Evaluations Based on Clinical Patient Samples
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Frontiers In Public Health. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 2296-2565. ; 9
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: For the most important and well-known infections spread by Ixodes ticks, Lyme borreliosis (LB) and tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), there are recommendations for diagnosis and management available from several health authorities and professional medical networks. However, other tick-borne microorganisms with potential to cause human disease are less known and clear recommendations on diagnosis and management are scarce. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of published studies and reviews focusing on evaluation of laboratory methods for clinical diagnosis of human tick-borne diseases (TBDs), other than acute LB and TBE. The specific aim was to evaluate the scientific support for laboratory diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, rickettsiosis, neoehrlichiosis, babesiosis, hard tick relapsing fever, tularemia and bartonellosis, as well as tick-borne co-infections and persistent LB in spite of recommended standard antibiotic treatment.Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in 11 databases for research published from 2007 through 2017, and categorized potentially relevant references according to the predefined infections and study design. An expert group assessed the relevance and eligibility and reviewed the articles according to the QUADAS (diagnostic studies) or AMSTAR (systematic reviews) protocols, respectively. Clinical evaluations of one or several diagnostic tests and systematic reviews were included. Case reports, non-human studies and articles published in other languages than English were excluded.Results: A total of 48 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for evaluation. The majority of these studies were based on small sample sizes. There were no eligible studies for evaluation of tick-borne co-infections or for persistent LB after antibiotic treatment.Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for larger evaluations of laboratory tests using clinical samples from well-defined cases taken at different time-points during the course of the diseases. Since the diseases occur at a relatively low frequency, single-center cross-sectional studies are practically not feasible, but multi-center case control studies could be a way forward.
|
|
