Wilske · Vector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.) 2003 · narrative review · n=?

Diagnosis of lyme borreliosis in europe.

Cited 119 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review and guideline summary without systematic search methodology or original data.

PubMed 14733674 · doi:10.1089/153036603322662200 · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

This narrative review outlines diagnostic protocols and German Society of Hygiene and Microbiology guidelines for Lyme borreliosis in Europe, addressing regional species diversity (B. burgdorferi sensu stricto, B. afzelii, and B. garinii). It describes two-step serological testing (ELISA followed by immunoblot), recombinant antigen utility, and specific indications for culture and PCR.

What was found

Serum antibody detection rates reported across disease stages are 20–50% in stage I, 70–90% in stage II, and nearly 100% in stage III. Direct detection yields positive results in 50–70% of skin biopsies (culture or PCR), 50–70% of synovial tissue or fluid samples (PCR), and 10–30% of cerebrospinal fluid samples. The review recommends against urine PCR, body fluid antigen tests, and lymphocyte transformation tests.

Why it matters

The paper summarizes standard diagnostic pathways tailored to European Borrelia heterogeneity and identifies unvalidated diagnostic tests that should not be used in clinical practice.

Limits

The abstract describes a narrative review without systematic search criteria, study selection methods, sample sizes, or formal meta-analytic data pooling. Diagnostic yields are reported as broad ranges without confidence intervals.

Cited by