Reply to Lacout et al.,
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064211%3A_____%2F19%3AW0000029" target="_blank" >RIV/00064211:_____/19:W0000029 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://jcm.asm.org/content/57/3/e01793-18.long" target="_blank" >https://jcm.asm.org/content/57/3/e01793-18.long</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01793-18" target="_blank" >10.1128/JCM.01793-18</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Reply to Lacout et al.,
Original language description
We recently compared diagnostic parameters of different commercial serological kits based on three different antigen types and correlated test results with the status of the patient’s Borrelia infection (1). We thank Lacout et al. for comments on our article expressed in their comment letter (2). Their objections mostly concern controversial issues, such as persistent polymorphic symptomatology after tick-bite (PPSTB), posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS), persistent or chronic Borrelia disease, etc., discussed in laboratory and clinical diagnostics of Lyme borreliosis for more than 30 years. These are extensive issues, which, in our opinion, are outside the scope of the original communication, so in a brief comment, there is no space for a qualified discussion on this controversial topic. The selection of patients and their inclusion in clinical groups were performed in accordance with the national (3) and European (4, 5) standards and case definitions. Only patients with a typical, well-defined disease were included in the study. Thus, the serological test results are compared between different clinical forms of the disease. The statement of Lacout et al. that “the ‘sick patients’ sample does not appear to be reliable in this article because this might exclude a too-large population of patients” is irrelevant. The purpose of the study was not to capture all patients with different forms of Lyme borreliosis but to compare the diagnostic parameters between the laboratory tests. By comparing the diagnostic parameters obtained by different methods on the same panel, we yield relative results; we find out which of the methods has a higher or lower sensitivity/specificity than the other, with no absolute values. However, the inclusion of unclearly defined clinical units of Lyme borreliosis, especially when “current serology cannot be used as a diagnostic marker of PTLDS” (6), as indirectly suggested by Lacout et al., not only would not improve the sensitivity and specificity of serological tests but would even have the opposite effect.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30303 - Infectious Diseases
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Others
Publication year
2019
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
ISSN
0095-1137
e-ISSN
1098-660X
Volume of the periodical
57
Issue of the periodical within the volume
3
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
2
Pages from-to
-
UT code for WoS article
000459801000026
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85062420581