↓ Skip to main content

Validate or falsify: Lessons learned from a microscopy method claimed to be useful for detecting Borrelia and Babesia organisms in human blood

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Diseases, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 635)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validate or falsify: Lessons learned from a microscopy method claimed to be useful for detecting Borrelia and Babesia organisms in human blood
Published in
Infectious Diseases, February 2016
DOI 10.3109/23744235.2016.1144931
Pubmed ID
Authors

Audun Aase, Ondrej Hajdusek, Øivind Øines, Hanne Quarsten, Peter Wilhelmsson, Tove K. Herstad, Vivian Kjelland, Radek Sima, Marie Jalovecka, Per-Eric Lindgren, Ingeborg S. Aaberge

Abstract

Background A modified microscopy protocol (the LM-method) was used to demonstrate what was interpreted as Borrelia spirochetes and later also Babesia sp., in peripheral blood from patients. The method gained much publicity, but was not validated prior to publication, which became the purpose of this study using appropriate scientific methodology, including a control group. Methods Blood from 21 patients previously interpreted as positive for Borrelia and/or Babesia infection by the LM-method and 41 healthy controls without known history of tick bite were collected, blinded and analysed for these pathogens by microscopy in two laboratories by the LM-method and conventional method, respectively, by PCR methods in five laboratories and by serology in one laboratory. Results Microscopy by the LM-method identified structures claimed to be Borrelia- and/or Babesia in 66% of the blood samples of the patient group and in 85% in the healthy control group. Microscopy by the conventional method for Babesia only did not identify Babesia in any samples. PCR analysis detected Borrelia DNA in one sample of the patient group and in eight samples of the control group; whereas Babesia DNA was not detected in any of the blood samples using molecular methods. Conclusions The structures interpreted as Borrelia and Babesia by the LM-method could not be verified by PCR. The method was, thus, falsified. This study underlines the importance of doing proper test validation before new or modified assays are introduced.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Other 5 13%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2023.
All research outputs
#511,277
of 24,657,405 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Diseases
#10
of 635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,168
of 304,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Diseases
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,657,405 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.