Evaluation of three commercial tests for Lyme disease.
A commercial indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and a passive hemagglutination kit were evaluated and compared with our in-house IFA and ELISA methods. Both IFA methods gave identical results but were less sensitive than ELISA methods. Likewise, the ELISA methods were comparable. The hemagglutination method gave a statistically significant difference when compared with our ELISA method (p = 0.018 McNemar test). It is recommended that the passive hemagglutination method should not be used in its current state.
Department of Medical Microbiology, Charing Cross Hospital, London, England.
S J
SJ
Cutler
D J
DJ
Wright
D000907:Antibodies, Bacterial / Q000097:blood; D015748:Borrelia burgdorferi Group / Q000276:immunology; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005455:Fluorescent Antibody Technique; D006386:Hemagglutination Tests; D006801:Humans; D008193:Lyme Disease / Q000175:diagnosis*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests
D000907:Antibodies, Bacterial