Edited by: Marc Jean Struelens, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Reviewed by: Christian Perronne, Assistance Publique Hopitaux De Paris, France; Shinuo Cao, State Key Laboratory of Veterinary Biotechnology, Harbin Veterinary Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
This article was submitted to Infectious Diseases - Surveillance, Prevention and Treatment, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health
†Members of the ESCMID Study Group for Lyme Borreliosis—ESGBOR, part of the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
The European tick
In 2015, the Norwegian Directorate of Health initiated a Nordic consensus collaboration focusing on diagnosis and management of TBDs other than LB and TBE, led by the Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Tick-borne Diseases. The Nordic consensus network consisted of physicians and researchers from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, as well as representatives from patient organizations. As part of this work, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health was engaged to perform a systematic literature search on clinical studies evaluating laboratory methods for diagnosis of human TBDs other than LB and TBE, and a group of physicians from the Nordic countries, all with clinical and research experience of TBDs, were assigned the task of reviewing the relevant references. The review process was observed by representatives from the Public Health Agency of Sweden, the Swedish Medical Products Agency, and the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden.
The purpose of this present systematic review was to provide an overview of published research from 2007 through 2017 on the performance of laboratory tests evaluated on clinical samples (i.e., using authentic patient samples) for the diagnosis of human TBDs, other than untreated LB and TBE, including laboratory diagnosis of tick-borne co-infections and post-treatment persisting LB, with the objective to elucidate the following clinical questions:
a) In patients with complaints possibly related to previous tick bite(s) and with negative laboratory diagnostic tests for LB and TBE, or previously antibiotic-treated LB, what diagnostic tests are relevant for diagnosing or excluding other TBDs, including tick-borne co-infections?
b) Are there any laboratory tests that can reliably support the diagnosis of persistent LB in spite of recommended standard antibiotic treatment?
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines (
We divided the work into two parts: (1) laboratory diagnosis of (single) TBDs, and (2) laboratory diagnosis of tick-borne co-infections. In both parts, we performed a systematic literature search and screened through the search results according to predefined selection criteria. In the first scientific literature search, we included references comprising research on adults, young people and children with symptoms of the following infections:
- human granulocytic anaplasmosis
- rickettsiosis (
- neoehrlichiosis (
- babesiosis (
- hard tick relapsing fever (
- tularemia (
- bartonellosis (
or with persisting symptoms after antibiotic treatment of LB (“chronic Lyme disease” or “post treatment Lyme disease syndrome”).
All laboratory methods identified in the literature search were considered as relevant, e.g., enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), immunofluorescent assays (IFA), immunoblotting, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), microscopy and culture. The following study designs were included: systematic reviews, cross sectional studies and case control studies. We also included case series and case studies mentioning diagnosis or diagnostic tests in the abstract. The search was limited to the publication years 2007–2017 to focus on more recent methods such as PCR. We excluded studies on tests for the diagnosis of early localized and early/late disseminated LB and TBE. We excluded studies on infections in ticks and domestic or wild animals.
In the second literature search, we included all studies reporting prevalence of or diagnostic methods for identifying co-infections between two or more of the ten infections included in the first search. In addition, we included studies on all stages of LB as well as TBE. This search was also limited to publication years 2007–2017. Studies on patients with other co-infections than TBDs, e.g., HIV, were excluded.
We searched the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (CRD DARE), Health Technology Assessments Database (CRD HTA), Epistemonikos, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, Prospero,
A research librarian (Kirkehei) performed systematic searches based on the eligibility criteria (
Eligibility criteria used for the systematic literature search.
Population |
Adults, young people and children with symptoms of the following infections: |
Diagnostic methods: | All laboratory methods identified in the literature search were relevant, e.g., enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), immunofluorescent assays (IFA), immunoblotting, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), microscopy and culture. |
Comparison: | For diagnostic studies: Reference test. All methods were relevant for inclusion. |
Outcomes: | Statistical measures of diagnostic performance or test accuracy measures, such as sensitivity/specificity, positive/negative predictive value, likelihood ratios. Studies based on reported clinical outcomes were included. |
Study design: | Systematic reviews, cross sectional studies, case control studies. Case series and case studies mentioning diagnosis or diagnostic tests in the abstract were also included. |
Exclusion: | Studies on tests for the diagnosis of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) and early localized and early/late disseminated Lyme borreliosis (LB). Studies on infections in ticks and domestic or wild animals. |
Inclusion: | All studies reporting prevalence or diagnostic methods for identifying tick-borne co-infections involving microorganisms included in part 1. In addition, studies on all stages of LB and TBE were included. |
Exclusion: | Studies on patients with other co-infections than tick-borne diseases, e.g., HIV. |
Kirkehei performed the searches in January 2018. The searches consisted of subject headings and free text terms describing the included TBDs and terms typically used when describing diagnostics (for instance diagnostic performance, sensitivity, specificity) or relevant study designs (for instance cross-sectional studies). The first search was limited to studies mentioning “ticks” (and other terms describing tick-bites) in the title or abstract. In a second supplementary search, this limitation was removed. Studies on animals or ticks (without mentioning humans) were also excluded from the search.
References from the literature search were exported to the online screening tool Covidence (
Included references were exported to the reference management system EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) where one person (Kirkehei) sorted the references into categories by infection type and publication year. The project group at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health checked the final sorting result.
In the first broad search (diagnostic tests), Kirkehei extracted information on diagnostic methods provided only in the abstracts. To ascertain relevance and to assess methodological quality, the Nordic expert group read the studies in full text. At this point, references where only abstract and no full text was available were excluded as well as case reports, case series and papers written in other languages than English. After assessment of the full-text articles, non-systematic reviews and studies of methods not intended for clinical diagnostics in humans were also excluded.
Two reviewers from the Nordic expert group independently extracted data on authors, scientific journal and year of publication, country where the study was conducted, number of participants in study population, type of method that was studied, antigen or target gene used in the studied method, if the index test had been compared with a reference test/standard, diagnostic accuracy (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value), and study findings. The expert reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias in each individual study. For the assessment of diagnostic studies, the QUADAS (
A descriptive analysis stratified by each TBD was used to summarize studies included in this systematic review. Themes for analysis included types of diagnostic methods, test performance, applicability, relevance and usefulness in clinical practice.
The study selection process and reasons for exclusion are shown in
Flow diagram of literature search and study selection process.
General information on the 48 publications that were included for quality assessment according to the QUADAS (diagnostic studies) or AMSTAR (systematic reviews) checklists.
Pan et al., 2011, J Clin Microbiol | China, 42 | Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) | msp2 | Either 4-fold increase of antibody titer or positive nested PCR targeting 16SrRNA gene or positive real-time PCR targeting msp2 | Sensitivity 62%, specificity 100% | Medium | Selected patient group, all were either seropositive or PCR-positive in another laboratory before inclusion |
Schotthoefer et al., 2013, J Clin Microbiol | USA, 361 | Real-time PCR | groEL | Blood smear | Sensitivity 100%, specificity not evaluated | Low | Clinically relevant study population, medical charts reviewed and clinical assessment before index test. Due to lack of proper reference test sensitivity could only be compared to blood smear in early acute phase of disease. Serology could not be evaluated due to lack of paired serum samples. Test results were presented without performance evaluation. Conclusion that PCR is better than blood smear in acute phase, serology better than PCR in late phase (> 4 days). |
Sanchez et al., 2016, JAMA | USA, 361 articles reviewed in depth | Low (no statistical methods used) | Systematic review. Short paragraph on laboratory diagnostics of A. phagocytophilum stating that microscopy on blood smear or buffy coat, PCR of blood and/or serologic testing may be used, evidence grading I-B for all three methods (American Evidence-Based Scoring System) This review also included laboratory diagnosis of babesiosis. | ||||
Boretti et al., 2009, Appl Environment Microbiol | Germany/Switzer-land, 884 dogs, 58 foxes, 214 humans, 2073 ticks | Real-time PCR | 23S rRNA |
Sensitivity 75% positive in dilution 1-10 copies/mL, Specificity 100% | Low/ medium | Stenos PCR was used to confirm the presence of Rickettsiae. The human samples were anonymous – spectrum bias? | |
Mouffok et al., 2011, Emerg Inf Dis | Algeria, 39 patients, 41 swab samples | qPCR + |
RC0338 gene + acetyl-transferase gene in |
qPCR coding β-actin (Raoult 2011) | Sensitivity 63.4%, Specificity 100% | Low | The clinical picture was judged as rather typical. Difficult to determine quality and bias. |
Renvoise et al., 2012, FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol | France, 465 patients, 643 samples | qPCR | Probes for SFG, TG |
Conventional PCR and sequencing, WB | Methodological sensitivity: 1 bacterium, specificity 100% | Medium/ high | Short communication, scarce details. |
Kowalczewska, 2012, FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol | France, 48 patients (10 |
Serology (ELISA) | 60 kD, Sca1, Ad2, omp1, pepA, RP631, spo01, 3-methylubi-quinone-9, 3-methyltransfer-ase, UDP-, Signal protein, FOF1, VapC1, VapB1, PLD, Sca13, Sca10, Dihydrofolate reductase, Hypothetical protein, RickA, Tu, | IFA + real-time PCR | Sensitivity 0-70%, Specificity 90-100% | Medium | Short communication. Few patients in every group. |
Do et al., 2009, Microbiol Immunol | Korea, 136 sera | In-house ELISA | Recombinant OmpA and OmpB antigen from |
Commercially available ELISA kit with whole OmpA and OmpB antigens from |
Recombinant OmpA: sensitivity 90%, specificity 100%. Recombinant OmpB: sensitivity 90-95%, specificity 95-100% | Low | The data suggest that the recombinant antigens have high specificity for |
Kantsö et al., 2009, J Microbiol Methods | Denmark, 111 Weil Felix (WF)-sera + 106 blood donor sera =total 217 | Two IFA methods (A and B) | Whole-cell bacteria IFA A - |
WF | WF vs IFA A: sensitivity 74%, specificity 79%. WF vs IFA B: sensitivity 60%, specificity 73%. IFA A vs IFA B: WF titer >200, 100% concordance. IFA A vs IFA B: WF titer 25-50, 38% and 56% concordance, respectively. IFA A vs IFA B: WF titer <25, 5% and 68% positives, respectively. | Low | |
Khrouf et al., 2015, Ticks Tickborne Dis | Tunisia, 101 patients, 121 samples | Reverse line blot (RLB) | 23S-5S rRNA gene | qPCR | Sensitivity 46.4%, specificity 86.1% (kappa value 0.33) | Low/ medium | |
Znazen et al., 2015, PLoS ONE | Tunisia, 180 patients (180 sera, 174 blood samples, 77 biopsies) | qPCR 1 (all |
Several sequences including 16sRNA gene | MIF | Serology positive in 82/183 (45%). qPCR positive in 46/182 (56%). qPCR diagnostic sensitivity (5%)-47.7%-54.5%%, specificity 100%. Methodological sensitivity = 2 copies/reaction for all PCRs (Rsp, Rtt, RCO338, Rp278) | Low | Differences in diagnostic sensitivity depending on test material. However the patients were judged having a rickettsial infection based on serology, but we do not know if there were rickettsial bacteria in the samples. Positive serology was used for defining diagnosis. Improved sensitivity with qPCR in skin biopsies vs whole blood samples and in initially seronegative patients. Some of the patients had taken antibiotics before analysis. |
Bizzini et al., 2015, Microbes and Infection | France, 213 sera (63 Q-fever; 20 spotted fever; 6 murine typhus; 124 controls) | Epifluor-escence immunoassay (InoDiag) | MIF 1 ( |
Sensitivity Q fever: acute Q fever): 20-30% (IgG),75- 83% (IgM), chronic Q-fever: 100%, past Q fever: 48-63% Sensitivity Spotted MSF/murine typhus - 91-100% Specificity Q fever: 82-100% Specificity Spotted MSF/murine typhus: 79-98% | Low | Few cases per diagnosis. | |
Qarsten et al., 2017, Ticks Tick Borne Dis | Norway, 70 patients with symptoms after tick bite | Commercial multiplex PCR and singleplex real-time PCR | Real-time PCR: groEL Multiplex PCR: not specified in article, only: ”Specific probes directed against… |
None | Commercial multiplex PCR: 4/69 (6%) positives, real-time PCR 7/70 (10%) positives | Low | The commercial multiplex PCR bacteria flow chip system failed to identify half of the infected patients detected by corresponding real-time PCR protocols. The recovery of |
Duh et al., 2007, Parasitology | Slovenia, 7 ; Austria, 2 | IFA | Blood smear microscopy + PCR | Not applicable | High | Only 10 serum samples, patient samples (n=9, “history of tick bite”) and one sample from Fullerlabs. No negative controls. Unclear which analysis were performed on which samples. There were too few patients to calculate diagnostic accuracy. | |
Ohmori et al., 2011, Parasitology Int | Japan, 8 | PCR | 4 genotype-specific (Kobe, Otsu, Nagano, US-type) | Blood smear microscopy and/or IFA | Not applicable | High | One patient, one asymptomatic positive blood donor and 7 negative controls. Not described how the patient or the positive blood donor were confirmed positive. There were too few patients to calculate diagnostic accuracy. |
Priest et al., 2012, Clinical & Vaccine Immunology | USA, 236 + Haiti, 30 | Multiplex IgG assay | BMN1-9/BmSA1-antigen | Blood smear microscopy + IFA | Sensitivity 97.4%, specificity 97.6% | Medium/high | Patient samples from CDC investigated for malaria and babesiosis and a negative control group. Unclear if the negative control group were investigated by blood smear. |
Teal et al., 2012, J Clin Microbiol | USA, 40 (+671) | Real-time PCR | Blood smear microscopy + conventional PCR | Sensitivity 5-10 parasites/μl, specificity 100% | Medium | Patients analysed for parasite infections. Real-time PCR compared to microscopy and conventional PCR with the aim of replacing conventional PCR with real-time PCR. Real-time PCR more sensitive than Giemsa stain. | |
Rollend et al., 2013, Vector Borne & Zoonotic Dis | USA, 19 | PCR | Blood smear microscopy | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 100% | Medium/high | 14 patients with babesiosis and 5 healthy controls. The method only detects |
|
Levin et al., 2014, Transfusion | USA, 74 (+ 1003 +15 000 blood donors) | EIA | BMN1 | IFA + PCR + blood smear microscopy | Sensitivity 88%, specificity 99.5% | Medium | Evaluated with regards to patient samples, not blood donors. Unclear if all three methods were performed on all samples. |
Wang et al., 2015, Diagnostic Microbiol Infect Dis | USA, 36 | PCR | Blood smear microscopy and serology | Not applicable | High | It is not clear from the article which analyses were made on each sample. | |
Racsa et al., 2015, J Clin Microbiol | Texas USA, 281 (6 Babesia spp, 275 Plasmodium spp) | CellaVision (digital hematology analyzer) | Microscopy | Blood smear conventional microscopy | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 100% | High | Only 6 samples positive for |
Wang et al., 2015, Ticks Tick-borne Dis | USA, 152 | PCR | Blood smear microscopy | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 97.7% | Low | Patient samples sent for parasite analysis. PCR and blood smear performed on all samples. | |
Chen, 2016, PLos Neglected Tropical Dis | China, 100 healthy controls but number of patients not clearly stated | PCR | Blood smear microscopy | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 97.0% for |
High | Patient group not clearly defined in the method section. In the article the authors state that they included patients with fever but not how many, only the total number of samples which includes animal and vector samples. | |
Aase et al., 2016, Infectious Diseases | Norway, 62 (21 patients + 41 controls) | Modified microscopy protocol (”LM method”) | Direct microscopy | Conventional microscopy, PCR and serology | Not applicable | Low | The structures interpreted as Borrelia and Babesia by the LM-method could not be verified by PCR. Because of this, diagnostic accuracy could not be calculated. |
Levin et al., 2016, Transfusion | USA, 129 (+ 26 703 blood donors) | EIA | BMN1-9/BmSA1-antigen + BMN1-17 | IFA + PCR + blood smear microscopy | Sensitivity 84.5% | Medium | Unclear how many of the 129 patients were diagnosed with blood smear microscopy or PCR. |
Hanron et al., 2017, Diagnostic Microbiol Infect Dis | USA, 18 | PCR | 18S rDNA | Not applicable | High | Reverse transcription PCR much more sensitive than PCR. It is unclear from the article which was the reference test, diagnostic accuracy could not be calculated. Few number of positive samples. | |
Souza et al., 2016, American Journal Tropical Medicine Hygiene | USA, 78 | 4 different real-time PCR methods and nested PCR | Blood smear | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 100% | Low | Sensitivity and specificity varied between the different real-time PCR methods from 71% to 100% (CI 95%) | |
Sanchez et al., 2016, JAMA | USA, 361 articles reviewed in depth | Low (no statistical methods used) | Systematic review. Microscopy on thin blood smear, evidence grading I-B (American Evidence-Based Scoring System). PCR should be considered early in the infection when parasites are few, but should be used with caution when monitoring response to therapy since DNA can be detected for a long time after parasites are no longer visualized in blood smears (IIb-B). Serology can confirm the diagnosis (I-B), but cannot replace microscopy and PCR. This review also included laboratory diagnosis of anaplasmosis. | ||||
Lee et al., 2014, Int J Mol Sci | USA, 14 | Nested PCR and direct Sanger DNA sequencing | 16SrRNA | Method tested in a group of patients with clinically suspected LB, no |
Not applicable | High | PCR method developed and extraction method optimized using cultured |
Molloy et al., 2017, Clin Infect Dis | USA, 30 (24 were evaluable) | ELISA | C6 | PCR | Overall sensitivity 91.7%. Acute phase sensitivity (<6 days) 16.7%. Convalescent phase (> 6 days) 86.7% Specificity not evaluated (C6 ELISA originally designed to diagnose LB) | Medium | The patients tested were pre-selected and all of them were PCR-positive for |
Koetsveld et al., 2017, CMI | Russia, 9 | Culture | Modified Kelly-Pettenkorfer medium with 10% fetal calf serum | PCR | Not applicable | High | The aim of the study was to optimize culture procedures in order to retrieve clinical isolates for future research, not for clinical diagnostic use (too slow compared to PCR, less sensitive). All included patient samples were PCR positive, and few samples were available. Sensitivity/specificity cannot be evaluated. |
Jahfari et al., 2017, J Microbiol Methods | Russia, 84 | Luminex | recombinant GlpQ | PCR | Sensitivity IgM 54%, IgG 38%, IgM+IgG 69%, Specificity IgM 98%, IgG 92% | Medium-High | The aim was to validate a recombinant GlpQ assay for clinical laboratory diagnostic use. A case-control design was used which may have over-estimated the diagnostic accuracy. |
Gouriet et al., 2008, Clin Microbiol Inf | France, 248 | Serologic multiplex array | Whole cell | IFA | IgG 100/95 sens/spec IgM 100/100 sens/spec in 16 patients | High | Selected material, patients with pneumonia |
Splettstoesser et al., 2010 J Clin Microbiol | Germany, 58 healthy + 58 tularemia patients | Serology (ICT) | LPS and whole cells | MAT | ICT sensitivity 98.3%, specificity 96.5% | Medium | Highly selected material for comparison of 2 antibody assays. |
Kilic et al., 2012, Dg Microbiol Inf Dis | Turkey, 345 109 tularemia cases, 236 healthy or other infections | Serology (ICT) | LPS and whole cells | MAT | ICT sensitivity 99.3%, specificity 94.6% | Medium | Antibody assay comparison in historical material |
Sharma et al., 2013, Clin Vaccin Immunol | Japan, 69 | Serology (competitive ELISA) | LPS and whole cells | MAT and indirect ELISA | Competitive ELISA sensitivity 91.1%, specificity 97%. Indirect ELISA sensitivity 94.1%, specificity 98%. MAT sensitivity 81.8%, specificity 98%. | Medium | Antibody assay comparison in serum samples from 19 tularemia patients and 50 healthy individuals. |
Chaignat et al., 2014, BMC Infect Dis | Serbia, 204 | Serology (2 commercial ELISAs, 1 in-house ELISA, 1 ICT, 1 in-house antigen microarray, 1 WB | LPS and whole cells | MAT | Sensitivity/specificity for Serion ELISA IgG 96.3%/96.8% Serion ELISA IgM 94.9%/96.8% Serazym ELISA 97%/91.5% In-house ELISA 95.6%/76.6% VIRapid ICT 97%/84% In-house microarray 91.1%/97.9% | Medium | Case-control |
Cubero et al., 2018, EurJ Clin Microbiol Inf Dis | Spain, 773 (364 diagnosed with tularemia) | Serology (commercial chemi-luminescence test) | Virclia CHT IgM/G | MAT, ICT, in-house ELISA IgG, and IgM. | Clinical diagnostic sensitivity 91.8%, specificity 96.7%. | Medium | Case-control. Performance similar to reference tests. |
Yanes et al., 2018, J Clin Microbiol | France, 208 | Serology (1 commercial ELISA, 1 commercial ICT) | ELISA IgM and IgG: LPS ICT: n.a. | In-house MAT and IFA | ELISA: IgM Sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 94.8%; IgG Sensitivity 86.3%, specificity 95.5%. ICT: IgM/IgG Sensitivity 90%, specificity 83.6% | Medium | Cross sectional and case control study design combined. |
Maggi et al., 2011, Diagn Micriol Inf Dis | USA, 192 | PCR 'bacteremia' | Culture enrichment | Non enrichment | Enrichment > non-enrichment Serology positive in 49.5 % PCR positive in 23.9 % | High | Laboratory cross sectional study of PCR detection of Bartonella spp compared to observed seropositivity |
Tsuruoka et al., 2012, Diagn Microbiol and Inf Dis | Japan, 206 | Serology (ELISA) | N-lauroyl-sarcosine soluble protein | IFA | ELISA sensitivity 95.7%, specificity 97.7% | Medium | Laboratory case-control assay comparison. |
Smit et al., 2013, Am J trop med and hyg | Peru, 65 | qPCR experimental | Dried blood spots Bartonella bacilliformis | Blood smear microscopy | PCR > smear | High | Low number of detected infections, 3% blood smear, 24.6% PCR |
Pultorak et al., 2013, J Clin Microbiol | USA, 91 | PCR, culture enrichment | Sequential testing for 1 week | n.a. | 2-3 PCR > 1PCR | High | Retrospective |
Vermeulen et al., 2007 Clin Microbiol Infect | The Netherlands, 107 | In-house serology (IFA) IgM and IgG | Whole cells ( |
PCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene | IFA IgM/IgG sensitivity 53%/67%, specificity 93%/82%. ELISA IgM/IgG sensitivity 65%/ 28%, specificity 91%/91% | Medium | The serological assays evaluated indicated low sensitivity, thus inappropriate as rule out tests for cat scratch disease. |
Caponetti et al., 2009, Am J Clin Path | USA, 38 | IHC | None | n.a. | High | Diagnostic sensitivity in evaluated tests including IHC is low for cat scratch disease. PCR and Steiner Silver stain were also performed and authors conclude that diagnostic sensitivity is low for all three tests (25-46% positives among cases with histologically or clinically suspected CSD). | |
Vermeulen et al., 2010, J Med Microbiol | The Netherlands, 105 | Serology (5 IFA, 1 ELISA) | Houston or Marseille strains | Lymphadeno-pathy + positive PCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene, and exclusion of other causes of lymphadeno-pathy | Sensitivity IgM 50-62%, specificity IgM 87-96%. Sensitivity IgG 88-98%, specificity IgG 69-89%. | High | The study confirms difficulties with the serodiagnosis of cat scratch disease using in-house and commercial tests. |
Kawasato et al., 2013, Rev Inst Mad Trop Sao Paulo | Brazil, 18 | Three PCR assays | 60 kD heat schock protein (HSP), FtsZ, 16S-23S intergenic spacer | None | The nested-FtsZ was more sensitive than nested-HSP and nested-ITS (p <0.0001), enabling the detection of Bartonella henselae DNA in 15 of 18 patients (83.3%). | High | Small methodological study. |
Otsuyma et al., 2016, J Clin Microbiol | Japan, 132 (24 definite and 23 suspected bartonellosis cases) | Serology (IgM ELISA vs IgM IFA) | N-lauroyl-sarcosine-insoluble proteins | Whole cell IgM IFA | Sensitivity ELISA 49-64%, IFA 28% | Medium | Laboratory method development. |
Tsuneoka et al., 2017, Diagn Microbiol and Inf Dis | Japan, 100 clinically suspected CSD cases and 90 healthy controls | Serology (conventional IFA vs strain-specific IgM IFA) | Strain-specific antigen | Whole cell IFA | 15 of suspected cases were positive with conventional IFA, 21 were positive with strain-specific IgM IFA | High | The strain-specific IFA greatly improved the accuracy of diagnosis, thus better diagnostic accuracy is achieved if antigens from country-specific strains are used. |
No studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. | |||||||
No studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. |
Full-text publications reviewed but excluded from further quality assessment by QUADAS/AMSTAR.
Al-Khedery et al., 2014, Pathogens | Do not describe a method for clinical diagnostics in humans, but rather a method for epidemiological surveillance of |
Silaghi et al., 2017, Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis | Not systematic review. |
Cooper et al., 2015, Clinical Microbiology Newsletter | Not systematic review. |
Bakken et al., 2015, Infect Dis Clin North Am | Not systematic review. |
Atif et al., 2015, Parasit Res | Not relevant, review of ecology and epidemiology. |
Schotthoefer et al., 2014, Wmj | Not systematic review. |
Jin et al., 2012, Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis | Not systematic review (despite the title the method is not described and cannot be assessed). |
Rymaszewska et al., 2011, Veterinarni Medicina | Not relevant, epidemiologic study on dogs. |
Bakken and Dumler, 2008, Infect Dis Clin North Am | Not systematic review. |
Dhand et al., 2007, Clin Inf Dis | Not systematic review. |
Eshoo et al., 2010, J Clin Microbiol | Not relevant, diagnostic performance evaluated only for Ehrlichia spp. and |
Ismail et al., 2010, Clin Lab Med | Not systematic review. |
Bitam and Raoult, 2009, Curr Probl Dermatol | Not systematic review. |
Dana et al., 2009, Dermatologic Therapy | Not systematic review. |
Biggs HM et al., 2016, CDC report | Not systematic review. |
Rahdi M et al., 2015, Indian J of Medical Research | Not systematic review. |
Paris DH et al., 2016, Curr Opin Infect Dis | Not systematic review. |
Chanana L et al., 2016, J Glob Infect Dis | Not systematic review. |
Wenneras C et al., 2017, Inf Dis | Study of risk factors for neoehrlichiosis. Diagnostic performance was not assessed. |
Silaghi C et al., 2016, Exp Appl Acarol | Not systematic review. |
Simonetti et al., 2016, Transfusion | Not relevant. Blood donors, not patient samples. Model for risk assessment, not patients. |
Bish et al., 2015, Transfusion | Not relevant, model for calculating cost effectiveness for screening program for blood donors. |
Gabrielli et al., 2012, Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis | Not relevant, no patients with symptoms. |
Rozej-Bielicka et al., 2017, Parasitology Res | Not relevant, not patients with symptoms (only asymptomatic individuals). |
Wilson et al., 2015, Exp Parasitol | Not relevant, not humans (hamsters). |
Verma et al., 2015, Am J Trop Med Hyg | Not relevant, no patient samples. Only mouse models/molecular biology not related to humans. |
Leiby et al., 2014, Transfusion | Not relevant, asymptomatic individuals with previous positive serology. |
Imugen, 2011 Clinical Trial | Not relevant, no patient samples, only blood donors. |
Edappallath et al., 2017, Transfusion | Not systematic review. |
Saleh et al., 2015, J Egypt Soc Parasitol | Not systematic review. |
Parija et al., 2015, Trop Parasitol | Not systematic review. |
Ord and Lobo, 2015, Curr Clin Mibrobiol Rep | Not systematic review. |
Hildebrandt et al., 2013, Infection | Not systematic review. |
Vannier and Krause, 2012, N Engl J Med | Not systematic review. |
Shah et al., 2012, Europ Infect Dis | Not systematic review. |
Vannier and Krause, 2009, Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis | Not systematic review. |
Vannier et al., 2008, Infect Dis Clin North Am | Not systematic review. |
Blevins et al., 2008, Cleve Clin J Med | Not systematic review. |
Sinski et al., 2016, Adv Med Sci | Not systematic review. |
Telford et al., 2015, Clin Lab Med | Not systematic review. |
Krause et al., 2015, Clin Microbiol Infect | Not systematic review. |
Banada et al., 2017, J Clin Microbiol | Not systematic review |
Seo et al., 2015, Biosens Bioelectron | Not systematic review |
Seiner, 2013, J Appl Microbiol | Not systematic review |
Matero, 2011, Clin Microbiol Infect | Not systematic review |
Janse, 2010, BMC Microbiol | Not systematic review |
Jiang, 2007, Anal Chim Acta | Not systematic review |
Rastawicki, 2015, J Microbiol Methods | Not systematic review |
Zasada, 2015, Lett Appl Microbiol | Not clinical |
Janse, 2012, Plosone | Not clinical |
Buzard, 2012, Forensic Sci Int | Not clinical |
Dauphin, 2011, Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis | Not clinical |
Mitchell, 2010, Mol Cell Probes | Not clinical |
Molins, 2009, Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis | Not clinical |
Liu et al., 2017, J Microbiol Meth | Methods not evaluated on clinical samples. |
Ferrara et al., 2014, Lett Appl Microbiol | Experimental serology, not clinical. |
Smit et al., 2013, Am J Trop Med | Experimental PCR, not clinical. |
Pultorak et al., 2013, J Clin Microbiol | Experimental PCR enrichment preculture, not clinical. |
Bergmans et al., 2013, Meth in Mol Biol | Experimental PCR, not clinical. |
Abarc et al., 2013, Rev Chilena Meth | Experimental serology, not clinical. |
Saisonkorh et al., 2012, FEMS Microbiol Lett | Experimental proteomics, not clinical. |
Tang et al., 2009, J Clin Microbiol | Experimental PCR, not clinical. |
Hoey et al., 2009, CVI | Laboratory comparison of serologic methods, not clinical. |
Fournier et al., 2009, J Med Microbiol | Experimental MALDI-TOF, not clinical. |
Wagner et al., 2008, Int J Med Microbiol | Laboratory comparison of serologic methods, not clinical. |
Sanchez Clemente et al., 2012, PLoS Negl Trop Dis | |
Angkasekwinai et al., 2014, Am J Trop Med | Not clinical. |
Gutierrez et al., 2017, Vector Borne & Zoonotic Dis | Not systematic review. |
Breitchwerdt et al., 2017, Vet Dermatol | Not systematic review. |
Amer et al., 2017, Curr Opin Ophtalmol | Not systematic review. |
Bonhomme et al., 2008, Curr Immunol Rev | Not systematic review. |
Bloch et al., 2007, Curr Infect Dis Rep | Not systematic review. |
Angelakis, 2009, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. | No tick association. |
Schlachter, 2017, Methods in Molecular Biology | Method development. No evaluation on clinical samples. |
Chan, 2013, BMC Microbiology | Method development. No evaluation on clinical samples. |
Source, 300 Antibody Diagnostic Test Kit. Ongoing clinical trial | No tick association. |
Jensen, 2017, Ugeskrift for Laeger | Not systematic review. |
Eickhodd, 2017, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine | Not systematic review. |
Sanchez, 2016, Journal of the American Medical Association | No evaluation on clinical samples. |
Choi, 2016, Current Sports Medicine Reports | Not systematic review. |
Nathavitharana, 2015, Clinical Medicine | Not systematic review. |
Schmitt, 2012, Infectious Disease Clinics of North America | No tick association. |
Dana, 2009, Dermatology Therapy | Not systematic review. |
Bitam & Raoult, 2009, Current Problems in Dermatology | Not systematic review. |
Aalto A et al., 2007. Acta Radiol | No laboratory method evaluated. |
Fallon BA et al., 2014, Clin Infect Dis. | Degree of inter-laboratory variability was assessed. |
Lantos PM et al., 2014, Clin Infect Dis. | Systematic review, but no diagnostic test was evaluated. |
D 'Alessandro M et al., 2017. Curr Infect Dis Reports. | Not systematic review. |
Nemeth J et al., 2016. Swiss Medical Weekly | Not systematic review. |
Halperin JJ, 2016. Acta Neurol Belgica. | Not systematic review. |
Halperin JJ, 2015. Inf & Drug Res. | Not systematic review. |
Cieszka J et al., 2015. Reumatologia | Not systematic review. |
Aucott JN, 2015. Infect Dis Clin North Am. | Not systematic review. |
Borgermans L et al., 2014. Int J Family Med. | Not systematic review. |
Nichols C, Windermuth B. J for Nurse Practitioners. | Not systematic review. |
Ljöstad U et al., 2013. Acta Neurol Scand. | Not systematic review. |
Rupprecht TA et al., 2011. Future Neurol. | Not systematic review. |
Stricker RB et al., 2008. Future Microbiol. | Not systematic review. |
Hoppa E et al., 2007. Curr Opinion in Pediatrics. | Not systematic review. |
Feder HM et al. 2007. N Engl J Med. | Not systematic review. |
Regarding laboratory methods evaluated for diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA), two studies on molecular detection (real-time PCR and loop-mediated isothermal amplification) vs. serology or blood smear microscopy and one systematic review were assessed according to the checklists.
Nine studies were reviewed, five regarding molecular detection and quantification (PCR, qPCR), of which one compared reverse line blot hybridization vs. qPCR. Four were serological studies [IFA, Western blot (WB), ELISA], one of which compared an epifluorescence immunoassay vs. conventional IFA and another compared ELISA vs. IFA.
One study using PCR for laboratory diagnosis of neoehrlichiosis in humans fulfilled the inclusion criteria for publications evaluating diagnostic tests and was reviewed according to the QUADAS checklist. Another publication did not contain information about diagnostic performance and one review was not systematic, and thus, these publications were excluded (
For
For
Seven diagnostic studies regarding
Out of 33 abstracts, ten diagnostic studies were included for further review. Five studies presented evaluations of serologic assays (ELISA, IFA), one of immunohistochemistry, and four studies of PCR methods.
Two publications (Schlachter, Chan,
None of the published articles assessed for eligibility (
In this systematic review we performed a broad, thorough, and systematic literature search in an attempt to identify all studies mentioning diagnostic methods of TBD, regardless of study design. Nonetheless, we may still have lost some relevant studies. We limited the search to studies mentioning tick or tick bite in the title or abstract. However, not all studies on TBD explicitly mention “ticks,” and therefore we performed a supplementary search without this limitation. Instead, we limited the search to those described as cross-sectional studies or diagnostic accuracy studies. This supplementary search gave some additional references, mainly about diagnostics of tularemia and babesiosis. Due to the study design criteria applied in the supplementary search, we may have missed some relevant publications, i.e., case reports and case series. On the other hand, a major aim of this review was to investigate to what extent the different diagnostic methods described or mentioned in the scientific literature have been evaluated in comparative studies using authentic human clinical samples. The search for Lyme disease (borreliosis) was limited to studies on so called “chronic Lyme disease” according to the initial aim. To find as many relevant studies as possible, we also used search terms as “chronic or persistent or lingering or long-term.” However, it is possible that studies that have used other descriptions for this condition may have been missed.
Only few studies of high quality comparing two laboratory methods have been published (Pan; Schotthoefer). One systematic review was published suggesting all three methods; microscopy of blood smear/buffy coat, PCR of blood and serology (Sanchez). However, in the acute phase of the disease, molecular detection by PCR in blood seems to have a higher sensitivity than microscopy of blood smear, and in later phase (>4 days) of disease, serology with paired samples could be preferred. In a non-systematic review (Silaghi,
Of the various serological tests available for laboratory diagnostics of rickettsial infection, microimmunofluorescence (MIF) or IFA for detection of IgG and IgM in acute and convalescent sera are widely used (Bizzini, Kantsö) and accepted as the reference method (
One high quality study with low risk of bias compared two different laboratory methods: a multiplex PCR and a singleplex real-time PCR (Quarsten). It showed a low sensitivity (6%) for the multiplex PCR and a slightly higher, but still low, sensitivity (10%) for the singleplex PCR. Plasma was found to be superior to whole blood for detection of
Golden standard for babesiosis diagnostics is still conventional blood smear. IFA serology and/or PCR can be used for confirmation of the blood smear results. Four studies (three on
Four studies compared PCR to blood smear and two studies compared PCR to blood smear and serology or conventional PCR. Most of the studies focused on
According to the systematic review by Sanchez et al. microscopy on thin blood smear is the most reliable method for diagnosis of active babesiosis, evidence grading I-B (American Evidence-Based Scoring System). PCR should be considered early in the infection when parasites are few and difficult to visualize in blood smears, but should be used with caution when monitoring response to therapy since DNA can be detected for a long time after parasites are no longer visualized in blood smears (IIb-B). Serology can confirm the diagnosis (I-B), but cannot replace microscopy and PCR.
Tick bites are the most common mode of transmission for
In
Among the 25 articles evaluating diagnostic methods, there was none assessed as being of high quality. Most of them were non-clinical laboratory comparisons of methods, either serological or PCR. The recommendation from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control regarding diagnostics in suspected bartonellosis consists of bacterial culture, PCR and serology in combination, but has not been consequently applied.
The lack of eligible articles focusing on human tick-borne co-infections highlights the need for further studies.
The terms post-treatment Lyme borreliosis/disease, chronic Lyme borreliosis/disease and persisting post-treatment Lyme borreliosis/disease are interchangeably used in the scientific contexts to describe a heterogenous patient population with mainly unspecific symptoms, either attributable to LB or not, following recommended antibiotic treatment of LB (
Taken together, the number of published studies and systematic reviews regarding the accuracy of diagnostic tests for TBDs, other than LB and TBE, evaluated on clinical samples, were unexpectedly limited. Many of the studies have been performed on a small number of study participants using a case control study design. When assessing these studies according to the QUADAS checklist, many of them were classified as having a medium to high risk of bias. This is of course a highly relevant problem when evaluating patients with complaints possibly related to tick bite(s). Which microbes should be tested for and what laboratory methods should be used? Unfortunately, our systematic review reveals that high quality clinical evaluations of which laboratory methods to use for diagnosis of most of the listed TBDs are scarce. However, one should also realize that cross sectional studies, that are often considered to be of higher quality than case control studies, are difficult to perform on infectious diseases that occur with low frequency in the population. Consequently, we need to accept case control studies together with epidemiological studies and case series. Admittedly, one needs to keep in mind that a medium to high risk of bias according to the QUADAS checklist does not necessarily imply poor quality of the study with regard to evaluation of test performance, since major factors of importance are inclusion of well-defined clinical cases and relevant controls.
For diagnosis of TBDs other than LB and TBE, a number of different laboratory techniques have been used, such as blood smear microscopy, immunohistochemistry, culture, serology and PCR. Which method that is most suitable partly depends on during which phase of the disease the samples are taken. Two or three methods are preferably combined in order to achieve higher sensitivity. For most of the TBDs covered in this systematic review, only few studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for in-depth evaluation, and several of them were based on small study populations. There were no eligible evaluation studies for tick-borne co-infections or for persistent LB after antibiotic treatment. 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 TBDs occur with low frequency in the population, single-center cross-sectional studies are practically not possible, but multi-center case control studies using well-defined clinical cases and relevant controls could be a way forward.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
This work was supported by the Norwegian Directorate of Health and by grants of the European Union through the European Development fund and the Interreg Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak and the Interreg NorthSea Region Programmes 2014-2020 as part of the ScandTick Innovation project (reference number 2015-29 000167) and the NorthTick project (reference number J-No: 38-2-7-19).
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The authors would especially like to thank Thomas Åkerlund, microbiologist and advisor at the Unit for laboratory surveillance of bacterial pathogens, Public Health Agency of Sweden, for valuable advice during the review process. The work of the Nordic expert group was also supported by Karin Söderberg Löfdal, M.D. and Ph.D., Swedish Medical Products Agency, and Ulf Törnebladh, M.D., medical advisor at the National Board of Health and Welfare, Sweden.