Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 18, Number 2—February 2012

Research

Effect of Surveillance Method on Reported Characteristics of Lyme Disease, Connecticut, 1996–2007

Starr-Hope ErtelComments to Author , Randall S. Nelson, and Matthew L. Cartter
Author affiliations: Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, Connecticut, USA

Main Article

Table 4

Late manifestations of Lyme disease, by surveillance method, Connecticut, 1996–2007*

Manifestation† No. cases (%)
PS, n = 2,059 AS, n = 1,725 ELS, n = 763 MLS, n = 4,678 Total, n = 9,225
Lyme arthritis 1,448 (70.3) 1,353 (78.4) 532 (69.7) 3,318 (70.9) 6,651 (72.1)
Bell palsy 454 (22.1) 259 (15.0) 143 (18.7) 814 (17.4) 1,670 (18.1)
Radiculoneuropathy 117 (5.7) 131 (7.6) 84 (11.0) 501 (10.7) 833 (9.0)
Lymphocytic meningitis 61 (3.0) 35 (2.0) 19 (2.5) 108 (2.3) 223 (2.4)
Encephalitis/encephalomylitis 38 (1.5) 18 (1.0) 26 (3.4) 116 (2.5) 198 (2.1)
Second- or third-degree heart block 40 (1.9) 26 (1.5) 10 (1.3) 58 (1.2) 134 (1.4)

*PS, passive surveillance; AS, active surveillance; ELS, enhanced laboratory surveillance; MLS, mandatory laboratory surveillance.
†May have included >1 late manifestation per case. Percentages do not add to 100%.

Main Article

TOP