You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 282 No. 1, July 7, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (17)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Bacterial Infections
 •Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
 •Diagnosis
 •Infectious Diseases
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Lyme Disease Serology

Problems and Opportunities

Gary P. Wormser, MD; Maria E. Aguero-Rosenfeld, MD; Robert B. Nadelman, MD

JAMA. 1999;282:79-80.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Serologic assays for Lyme disease, first used in 1983,1 are widely ordered in the United States, with an estimated 2.8 million tests performed annually.2 High demand undoubtedly has provided a potent stimulus for the development and marketing of a large number of assays for detection of antibody to Borrelia burgdorferi. As reported by Brown and colleagues3 of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in this issue of THE JOURNAL, 45 first-step assays, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), immunofluorescent assays (IFAs), or immunodot techniques, and 8 second-step (supplemental) immunoblot assays have been granted FDA approval. Given the tremendous interest in these tests, it is important for physicians, other health care professionals, and the public to appreciate the strengths and limitations of these tests so that they are used in a helpful way. Brown and colleagues have addressed many of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Division of Infectious Diseases (Drs Wormser and Nadelman) and the Departments of Medicine and Pathology (Dr Aguero-Rosenfeld), New York Medical College, Valhalla.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Role of Serology in the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
S. Lori Brown, Sharon L. Hansen, and John J. Langone
JAMA. 1999;282(1):62-66.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis
Aguero-Rosenfeld et al.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2005;18:484-509.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Laboratory Testing for Lyme Disease: Possibilities and Practicalities
Reed
J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002;40:319-324.
FULL TEXT  

Lyme borreliosis in Ontario: determining the risks
CMAJ 2000;162:1573-1574.
 

Borrelia burgdorferi B31 Erp Proteins That Are Dominant Immunoblot Antigens of Animals Infected with Isolate B31 Are Recognized by Only a Subset of Human Lyme Disease Patient Sera
Miller et al.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 2000;38:1569-1574.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.