Skip to main content

Table 2 Crude, weighted, and weighted and age-standardized seroprevalence based on varying seropositivity classification algorithms

From: Regional seropositivity for Borrelia burgdorferi and associated risk factors: findings from the Rhineland Study, Germany

Seropositivity combinations

Crude proportion (%), n = 2865

Weighted proportion (%) with 95% CI, n = 2858

Weighted & age-standardized (BGS98) proportion (%) with 95% CI, n = 2858

Weighted & age-standardized (DEGS) proportion (%) with 95% CI, n = 2858

IgG seropositivity

 IgG positivity–ELISA borderline or positive & positive immunoblota

2.4

2.2 (1.6, 2.7)

1.8 (1.4, 2.3)

2.2 (1.6, 2.7)

 IgG positivity–positive ELISA

6.8

6.4 (5.5, 7.3)

6.0 (5.1, 6.9)

6.5 (5.6, 7.4)

 IgG positivity–positive ELISA & borderline or positive immunoblot or borderline ELISA & positive immunoblotb

4.8

4.6 (3.8, 5.3)

4.2 (3.4, 4.9)

4.7 (3.9, 5.4)

IgM seropositivity

 IgM positivity–ELISA borderline or positive & positive immunoblota

0.6

0.6 (0.3, 0.9)

0.6 (0.3, 0.8)

0.6 (0.3, 0.8)

 IgM positivity–positive ELISA

1.0

1.0 (0.6, 1.3)

0.9 (0.5, 1.2)

1.0 (0.6, 1.3)

 IgM positivity–positive ELISA & borderline or positive immunoblot or borderline ELISA & positive immunoblotb

0.7

0.6 (0.3, 0.9)

0.6 (0.3, 0.9)

0.6 (0.4, 0.9)

IgG and IgM seropositivity combined

 IgG positivity & IgM positivity–ELISA borderline or positive & positive immunoblota

0.1

 < 0.1 (0.0, 0.2)

0.1 (0.0, 0.3)

0.1 (0, 0.2)

 IgG positivity & IgM positivity–positive ELISA

0.4

0.5 (0.2, 0.7)

0.4 (0.2, 0.7)

0.5 (0.2, 0.8)

 IgG positivity & IgM positivity–positive ELISA & borderline or positive immunoblot or borderline ELISA & positive immunoblotb

0.2

0.3 (0.1, 0.5)

0.3 (0.1, 0.5)

0.3 (0.1, 0.5)

  1. To correct for differences between the sample and the German population regarding population characteristics, we applied weights considering age, sex (census 2011, www.destatis.de) and education (micro-census 2020, www.destatis.de) [40]. To make our proportions comparable to those numbers reported in previous studies for the DEGS and BGS98 cohorts, we applied weights considering sex and education and then age-standardized the weighted proportions to reflect the age distribution of the DEGS and BGS98 cohorts.
  2. aCorresponding to the MIQ 12 standard [33]
  3. bClassification used in Woudenberg et al. [30]
  4. N number of participants; M mean; IgG immunoglobulin G antibodies; IgM immunoglobulin M antibodies; SD standard deviation; IQR interquartile range