Skip to main content
. 2024 Aug 2;18(8):e0012377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012377

Table 8. Diagnostic methods used to diagnose human ehrlichiosis.

Diagnostic method Level of diagnostic certainty* Human ehrlichiosis CRID [n = 413] Human ehrlichiosis CRNID [n = 814]
Number of cases tested positive by this method n (%)# Number of cases for which this level of diagnostic certainty was the highest n (%) Number of cases tested positive by this method n (%)# Number of cases for which this level of diagnostic certainty was the highest n (%)
PCR A+ 216 (52.3) 219 (53) 432 (53.1) 432 (53.1)
Culture 3 (<1) 14 (1.7)
Immunostaining of biopsy tissue 16 (3.9) -
Serology–IgG IFA, paired samples A 109 (26.4) 92 (22.3) 341 (41.9) 308 (37.8)
Microscopy B+ 53 (12.8) 12 (2.9) 13 (1.6) 2 (<1)
Serology–IgG IFA, single sample B 50 (12.1) 33 (8.0) 86 (10.6) 69 (8.5)
Serology–IgG ELISA, single sample - -
Serology–IgM IFA or ELISA C 8 (1.9) 53 (12.8) - 3 (<1)
Serology–method not specified 70 (16.9) 28 (3.4)
Clinical diagnosis D 4 (<1) 4 (1) - -

CRID, cases reported with individual data; CRNID, cases reported with non-individual data; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IFA, immunofluorescence assay; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

* A+, diagnosed by PCR, culture and/or immunostaining of biopsy/autopsy tissue; A, diagnosed by paired IgG IFA serology; B+, diagnosed by microscopy of blood smear or buffy coat preparation; B, diagnosed by single IgG IFA or ELISA serology; C, diagnosed by IgM serology and/or unspecified serology method; D, clinically diagnosed.

# in many cases a combination of diagnostic tests was used to establish the diagnosis. Thus, the number of positive test results exceeds the number of cases.