ArticleBMJ open2024
Using cerebrospinal fluid nanopore sequencing assay to diagnose tuberculous meningitis: a retrospective cohort study in China.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of Tuberculous Meningitis: Integrating Clinical Assessment and Molecular Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Nanopore sequencing for precise detection ofJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Clinical Manifestations, and Management Strategies of Tuberculous Meningitis.Archives of internal medicine research · 2025Article
- Nanopore-targeted sequencing (NTS) for intracranial tuberculosis: a promising and reliable approach.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2024Article
- Tri-layer microbiology for LMIC Hospitals: linking syndromic panels with reflex culture and targeted sequencing for real world care - a narrative review.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of nanopore sequencing for the early diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) using cerebrospinal fluid and compared it with acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smear, mycobacterial growth indicator tube culture and Xpert
designSingle-centre retrospective study.
settingThe Tuberculosis Diagnosis and Treatment Center of Zhejiang Chinese and Western Medicine Integrated Hospital.
participantsWe enrolled 64 adult patients with presumptive TBM admitted to our hospital from August 2021 to August 2023.
methodsWe calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of AFB smear, culture, Xpert MTB/RIF and nanopore sequencing to evaluate their diagnostic efficacy compared with a composite reference standard for TBM.
resultsAmong these 64 patients, all tested negative for TBM by AFB smear. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 11.11%, 100%, 100% and 32.2% for culture, 13.33%, 100%, 100% and 2.76% for Xpert MTB/RIF, and 77.78%, 100%, 100% and 65.52% for nanopore sequencing, respectively.
conclusionThe diagnostic accuracy of the nanopore sequencing test was significantly higher than that of conventional testing methods used to detect TBM.
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.