https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30060012/

2019 May 11;8(2):170-173. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piy067.

Symptom Resolution in Pediatric Patients With Lyme Disease.

Abstract

We performed a retrospective study to determine the time frame for symptom resolution in 78 pediatric patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed early-disseminated or late-stage Lyme disease. The vast majority of the patients improved promptly after receiving appropriate antibiotics. Patients with a longer duration of arthritis before the institution of therapy experienced a longer time to recovery.

________________

**Comment**

The difference between a prospective study vs a retrospective study:  https://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm

Prospective:  A prospective study watches for outcomes, such as the development of a disease, during the study period and relates this to other factors such as suspected risk or protection factor(s). The study usually involves taking a cohort of subjects and watching them over a long period. 

Retrospective:  A retrospective study looks backwards and examines exposures to suspected risk or protection factors in relation to an outcome that is established at the start of the study. Most sources of error due to confounding and bias are more common in retrospective studies than in prospective studies. You should take special care to avoid sources of bias and confounding in retrospective studies.

In this retrospective study, there is going to be bias as they again use “laboratory-confirmed” testing, which is going to be that same-o-same-o CDC two-tiered serology that misses over half of all cases.  A chunk of patients are omitted right from the get go.

The “vast majority” of patients improving, again is a biased statement as a multitude were excluded from the study. And while it’s true that many improve promptly with treatment, treatment failures have existed from the beginning of time: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/02/22/why-mainstream-lyme-msids-research-remains-in-the-dark-ages/

The only redeeming statement is that those with longer duration of arthritis before treatment required a longer recovery.  Unfortunately, due to bias, so many patients are omitted, so many symptoms were not accepted, and therefore this study only regurgitates previous studies done by The Cabal:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/13/lyme-science-owned-by-good-ol-boys/

Many scientists have been ostracized for not following the party line.

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/13/lyme-science-owned-by-good-ol-boys/