This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Victor P. Berardi; Richard H. Seder, MD, MPH
Imugen, Inc Norwood, Mass

JAMA. 1994;272(3):203.

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

To the Editor.

—The article entitled "The Use of Serologic Tests for Lyme Disease in a Prepaid Health Plan in California" by Ms Ley and colleagues reports a total lack of correlation between patients' clinical condition and serologic test results. The authors' discussion includes what appears to have become an obligatory statement in every article on Lyme disease: "The currently available serologic tests have both relatively poor specificity and low sensitivity."

Like most truisms, the statement is only partially true; the study's findings stem in large part from its use of an obsolete (albeit inexpensive) method of Lyme serology, ie, indirect immunofluorescent antibody (IFA), clearly and repeatedly documented to be the least sensitive and least specific of commonly used assays for antibody to Borrelia burgdorferi.² Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is somewhat better than IFA, but the detection of B burgdorferi—specific IgM, IgG, and IgA by antibody capture has . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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