ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2023
Accuracy of Nanopore Sequencing as a Diagnostic Assay for Pulmonary Tuberculosis versus Smear, Culture and Xpert MTB/RIF: A Head-to-Head Comparison.
Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis and drug-resistant strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- The diagnostic value of targeted next-generation sequencing for smear-negative and sputum-scarce pulmonary tuberculosis.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis in samples with different results by smear and culture in a coastal city with high incidence of tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing in Tuberculous Lymphadenitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of third-generation nanopore sequencing in non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Utility of Nanopore Sequencing for Tuberculous Serous Effusions.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Identification and molecular characterization ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of third-generation nanopore sequencing in extrapulmonary tuberculosis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of nanopore sequencing technology in nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Nanopore Sequencing for Diagnosing Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Negative Smear Clinical Specimens.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Evaluating Tuberculosis Screening Tools: A Decade-Long Network Meta-Analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity with Bibliometric Insights.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Early diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is pivotal for achieving effective tuberculosis (TB) control. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of nanopore sequencing of sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and pleural fluid samples for achieving early PTB diagnosis and provided head-to-head comparisons of nanopore sequencing results versus results obtained using smear, culture, and Xpert MTB/RIF assays. Patients admitted from October 2021 to April 2023 were screened for PTB using diagnostic imaging and electronic medical records. A total of 172 patients (129 PTB, 43 non-TB patients) were included in the final analysis after the exclusion of patients who did not meet the study's inclusion criteria. PTB-positive rates were determined for each assay, and then, assay diagnostic efficacies were compared. The positive MTB-detection rates obtained using nanopore sequencing were 86.8% for all samples, 62.3% for BALF, and 84.6% for pleural fluid, all of which were significantly higher than the corresponding rates obtained using the other three assays. The overall sensitivity rates, specificity rates, and area under the curve (AUC) values obtained from smear testing were 5.4%, 95.3%, and 0.504, respectively, as compared to the respective results obtained via culture (18.6%, 100.0%, and 0.593), Xpert MTB/RIF (26.4%, 97.7%, and 0.620), and nanopore sequencing (85.3%, 95.4%, and 0.903). The diagnostic efficacy of nanopore sequencing surpassed the diagnostic efficacies of smear, culture, and Xpert MTB/RIF assays. Thus, nanopore sequencing holds promise as an alternative to Xpert MTB/RIF for early PTB detection, particularly for the testing of BALF and pleural fluid samples.
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.