ArticleJournal of translational medicine2023
Simultaneous diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy and malignant pleural effusion using metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS).
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing for tuberculosis diagnosis: enhanced performance and cost-effectiveness.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Observational
- Comparison of the diagnostic value of targeted next-generation sequencing, metagenomic next-generation sequencing, and Xpert MTB/RIF in adult pulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional microbiology for microbial profiling in biliary tract infections: a comparative study with clinical stratification.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Differentiating tuberculous pleurisy from pulmonary tuberculosis using mNGS: a multicenter cohort analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Differential diagnosis model for tuberculous and malignant pleural effusion combining U-Net automatic segmentation and deep learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Transforming tuberculosis diagnosis with clinical metagenomics: progress and roadblocks.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Review
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing for concurrent diagnosis of infections and malignancies in patients with lung lesions: a single-center prospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Use of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for accurate diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Utility of Nanopore Sequencing for Tuberculous Serous Effusions.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Accuracy of next-generation sequencing for rapid diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- A retrospective analysis comparing metagenomic next-generation sequencing with conventional microbiology testing for the identification of pathogens in patients with severe infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Single-cell sequencing: Current applications in various tuberculosis specimen types.Cell proliferation · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has become a powerful tool for pathogen detection, but the value of human sequencing reads generated from it is underestimated.
methodsA total of 138 patients with pleural effusion (PE) were diagnosed with tuberculous pleurisy (TBP, N = 82), malignant pleural effusion (MPE, N = 35), or non-TB infection (N = 21), whose PE samples all underwent mNGS analysis. Clinical TB tests including culture, Acid-Fast Bacillus (AFB) test, Xpert, and T-SPOT, were performed. To utilize mNGS for MPE identification, 25 non-MPE samples (20 TBP and 5 non-TB infection) were randomly selected to set human chromosome copy number baseline and generalized linear modeling was performed using copy number variant (CNV) features of the rest 113 samples (35 MPE and 78 non-MPE).
resultsThe performance of TB detection was compared among five methods. T-SPOT demonstrated the highest sensitivity (61% vs. culture 32%, AFB 12%, Xpert 35%, and mNGS 49%) but with the highest false-positive rate (10%) as well. In contrast, mNGS was able to detect TB-genome in nearly half (40/82) of the PE samples from TBP subgroup, with 100% specificity. To evaluate the performance of using CNV features of the human genome for MPE prediction, we performed the leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) in the subcohort excluding the 25 non-MPE samples for setting copy number standards, which demonstrated 54.1% sensitivity, 80.8% specificity, 71.7% accuracy, and an AUC of 0.851.
conclusionIn summary, we exploited the value of human and non-human sequencing reads generated from mNGS, which showed promising ability in simultaneously detecting TBP and MPE.
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.