[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.147.238.168. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
August 8, 1990

Diagnostic Tests for Lyme Disease-Reply

Author Affiliations

The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health Baltimore, Md
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Trenton

The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health Baltimore, Md
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Trenton

JAMA. 1990;264(6):692-693. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03450060038014
Abstract

In Reply.—  Our article attempted to assess the interlaboratory and intralaboratory reliability of serological tests for Lyme disease. The two most commonly performed methods for these tests are indirect fluorescent antibody procedures and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.1 Although one of these test methods reports titers from serial dilutions (eg, 1:128) and the other reports an optical density, the clinician usually is most interested in whether the laboratory is reporting the sample as "positive" or "negative." Thus, we disagree with Dr Gambino's contention that we "mix apples and oranges" in our article, as these two methods both report the presence (positive) or absence (negative) of antibody to Borrelia burgdorferi. We do not disagree that enzymelinked immunosorbent assays are probably a better test method; however, many laboratories, including those in state departments of health, commercial laboratories, and research laboratories, are still performing immunofluorescent antibody tests. Thus, it was important to consider this

×