ReviewInfection2026
Biomarkers of Lyme neuroborreliosis: a systematic review.
Review in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe persistent challenges with diagnosing Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB) have fostered investigations in a broad spectrum of biomarker candidates. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive overview of these potential biomarkers of LNB.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines on Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The study protocol was published on PROSPERO prior to study-initiation. Studies identified through the combined search strings were screened for eligibility by independent physicians with expertise in LNB. Quality assessment and risk of bias was determined for all included studies using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. In addition, criteria for consistency and a quality-score were established to quantify and compare diagnostic potential of biomarkers across studies.
resultsThe search-strings yielded a total of 3113 unique studies of which 74 studies were found eligible for inclusion. The included studies investigated 220 different biomarkers in a total of 2598 patients with LNB from 1990 to 2025 in 13 different countries. No blood-based biomarkers showed consistent diagnostic potential across studies. IL-10 was ranked as the most promising biomarker in CSF.
conclusionThe biomarker literature in LNB is characterized by substantial redundancy, with few candidates demonstrating consistent diagnostic potential across studies. Future research should prioritize rigorous validation of the most promising biomarkers rather than continued exploratory investigations to accelerate clinical translation.In addition, improved knowledge of LNB pathogenesis is a requisite for targeted biomarker discovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42545454What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.