Lyme borreliosis is caused by certain genospecies of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, which are transmitted by hard ticks of the genus Ixodes. The most common clinical manifestation is erythema migrans, an expanding skin redness that usually develops at the site of a tick bite and eventually resolves even without antibiotic treatment. The infecting pathogens can spread to other tissues and organs, resulting in manifestations that can involve the nervous system, joints, heart and skin. Fatal outcome is extremely rare and is due to severe heart involvement; fetal involvement is not reliably ascertained. Laboratory support—mainly by serology—is essential for diagnosis, except in the case of typical erythema migrans. Treatment is usually with antibiotics for 2 to 4 weeks; most patients recover uneventfully. There is no convincing evidence for antibiotic treatment longer than 4 weeks and there is no reliable evidence for survival of borreliae in adequately treated patients. European Lyme borreliosis is a frequent disease with increasing incidence. However, numerous scientifically questionable ideas on its clinical presentation, diagnosis and treatment may confuse physicians and lay people. Since diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis should be based on appropriate clinical signs, solid knowledge of clinical manifestations is essential.

Interpretation of serological assays in Lyme borreliosis requires an understanding of the clinical indications and the limitations of the currently available tests. We therefore systematically reviewed the accuracy of serological tests for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. We searched EMBASE en MEDLINE and contacted experts. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for Lyme borreliosis in Europe were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were done by two authors independently. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used a hierarchical summary ROC meta-regression method for the meta-analyses. Potential sources of heterogeneity were test-type, commercial or in-house, Ig-type, antigen type and study quality. These were added as covariates to the model, to assess their effect on test accuracy. Seventy-eight studies evaluating an Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent assay (ELISA) or an immunoblot assay against a reference standard of clinical criteria were included. None of the studies had low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains. Sensitivity was highly heterogeneous, with summary estimates: erythema migrans 50 % (95 % CI 40 % to 61 %); neuroborreliosis 77 % (95 % CI 67 % to 85 %); acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans 97 % (95 % CI 94 % to 99 %); unspecified Lyme borreliosis 73 % (95 % CI 53 % to 87 %). Specificity was around 95 % in studies with healthy controls, but around 80 % in cross-sectional studies. Two-tiered algorithms or antibody indices did not outperform single test approaches. The observed heterogeneity and risk of bias complicate the extrapolation of our results to clinical practice. The usefulness of the serological tests for Lyme disease depends on the pre-test probability and subsequent predictive values in the setting where the tests are being used. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should be prospectively planned cross-sectional studies, done in settings where the test will be used in practice.