Monday, 20 June 2016


On and on and on the arguments continue. Once again a paper about testing for Lyme Disease

Current Guidelines, Common Clinical Pitfalls, and Future Directions for Laboratory Diagnosis of Lyme Disease, United States.

But most importantly read the comment 

Circular Reasoning in CDC Lyme Disease Test Review

Raphael B. Stricker, MD; Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA

Previous studies have shown that commercial two-tier serological testing has a sensitivity of about 46% in later-stage Lyme disease in the USA [1]. Commercial two-tier Lyme testing in Europe demonstrates the same poor test sensitivity [2].

The Table in the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) review by Moore et al. cites three studies allegedly showing that two-tier Lyme testing in later-stage (“non-cutaneous”) Lyme disease has a sensitivity of 87-96% [3]. These numbers will undoubtedly be used to support two-tier testing as a valid diagnostic tool for Lyme disease. Therefore it is important to understand the circular reasoning that produced these inflated and misleading numbers.

Analysis of the three studies cited in the CDC review reveals the following: patients with later-stage Lyme disease had to have positive serology in order to be included in the study, and then they had positive serology. Circular reasoning

Go to the above link to read the comment in it's entirety.

Currently Dept of Health have promised to conduct three reviews on Lyme Disease some details of this are discussed here

Many of us have concerns as to how these reviews will be conducted and how the evidence will be looked at.
The above is a good example of the circular reasoning that has dogged Lyme disease science.

There appears to be no opportunities for patients and their doctors to contribute to the review process and highlight such circular reasoning. 

No comments:

Post a Comment