Leeflang M M G, Ang C W, Berkhout J, Bijlmer H A, Van Bortel W, Brandenburg A H, Van Burgel N D, Van Dam A P, Dessau R B, Fingerle V, Hovius J W R, Jaulhac B, Meijer B, Van Pelt W, Schellekens J F P, Spijker R, Stelma F F, Stanek G, Verduyn-Lunel F, Zeller H, Sprong H
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Mar 25;16:140. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1468-4.
Interpretation of serological assays in Lyme borreliosis requires an understanding of the clinical indications and the limitations of the currently available tests. We therefore systematically reviewed the accuracy of serological tests for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe.
We searched EMBASE en MEDLINE and contacted experts. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for Lyme borreliosis in Europe were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were done by two authors independently. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used a hierarchical summary ROC meta-regression method for the meta-analyses. Potential sources of heterogeneity were test-type, commercial or in-house, Ig-type, antigen type and study quality. These were added as covariates to the model, to assess their effect on test accuracy.
Seventy-eight studies evaluating an Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent assay (ELISA) or an immunoblot assay against a reference standard of clinical criteria were included. None of the studies had low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains. Sensitivity was highly heterogeneous, with summary estimates: erythema migrans 50% (95% CI 40% to 61%); neuroborreliosis 77% (95% CI 67% to 85%); acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans 97% (95% CI 94% to 99%); unspecified Lyme borreliosis 73% (95% CI 53% to 87%). Specificity was around 95% in studies with healthy controls, but around 80% in cross-sectional studies. Two-tiered algorithms or antibody indices did not outperform single test approaches.
The observed heterogeneity and risk of bias complicate the extrapolation of our results to clinical practice. The usefulness of the serological tests for Lyme disease depends on the pre-test probability and subsequent predictive values in the setting where the tests are being used. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should be prospectively planned cross-sectional studies, done in settings where the test will be used in practice.
莱姆病血清学检测结果的解读需要了解临床指征以及现有检测方法的局限性。因此,我们系统回顾了欧洲用于诊断莱姆病的血清学检测的准确性。
我们检索了EMBASE和MEDLINE,并联系了专家。评估欧洲莱姆病血清学检测诊断准确性的研究符合要求。由两位作者独立进行研究筛选和数据提取。我们使用QUADAS-2清单评估研究质量。我们采用分层汇总ROC元回归方法进行荟萃分析。异质性的潜在来源包括检测类型、商业或内部检测、免疫球蛋白类型、抗原类型和研究质量。将这些作为协变量添加到模型中,以评估它们对检测准确性的影响。
纳入了78项评估酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)或免疫印迹测定相对于临床标准参考标准的研究。没有一项研究在所有QUADAS-2领域的偏倚风险都很低。敏感性高度异质,汇总估计值如下:游走性红斑为50%(95%置信区间40%至61%);神经莱姆病为77%(95%置信区间67%至85%);慢性萎缩性肢端皮炎为97%(95%置信区间94%至99%);未明确的莱姆病为73%(95%置信区间53%至87%)。在有健康对照的研究中,特异性约为95%,但在横断面研究中约为80%。两层算法或抗体指数并不优于单一检测方法。
观察到的异质性和偏倚风险使我们的结果难以外推至临床实践。莱姆病血清学检测的有用性取决于检测前概率以及在使用检测的环境中的后续预测值。未来的诊断准确性研究应是前瞻性规划的横断面研究,在检测将实际应用的环境中进行。