ArticleInfection and drug resistance2023
Pathogen Diagnosis Value of Nanopore Sequencing in Severe Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia Patients.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nanopore sequencing for microbiological diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating metagenomics and targeted approaches for diagnosis and surveillance of viruses.Genome medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Nanopore Sequencing for Diagnosing Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Negative Smear Clinical Specimens.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Nanopore Sequencing Technology: A Reliable Method for Pathogen Diagnosis in Elderly Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Next-generation sequencing of the metagenome (mNGS) is increasingly used in pathogen diagnosis for infectious diseases due to its short detection time. The time for Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing-based etiology detection is further shortened compared with that of mNGS, but only a few studies have verified the time advantage and accuracy of ONT sequencing for etiology diagnosis. In 2022, a study confirmed that there was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity between ONT and mNGS in suspected community-acquired pneumonia patients, which there was no clinical study verified in patients with SHAP. Methods: From October 24 to November 20, 2022, 10 patients with severe hospital-acquired pneumonia (SHAP) in the Nanfang Hospital intensive care unit (ICU) were prospectively enrolled. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) was collected for ONT sequencing, mNGS, and traditional culture. The differences in pathogen detection time and diagnostic agreement among ONT sequencing, mNGS, traditional culture method, and clinical composite diagnosis were compared. Results: Compared with mNGS and the traditional culture method, ONT sequencing had a significant advantage in pathogen detection time (9.6±0.7 h versus 24.7±2.7 h versus 132±58 h, P <0.05). The agreement rate between ONT sequencing and the clinical composite diagnosis was 73.3% (kappa value=0.737, P <0.05). Conclusion: ONT sequencing has a potential advantage for rapidly identifying pathogens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.