ArticlePloS one2024
The value of nanopore sequencing as a diagnostic tool in tuberculous meningitis: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Clinical Manifestations, and Management Strategies of Tuberculous Meningitis.Archives of internal medicine research · 2025Article
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
backgroundRapid diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) remains very difficult. Nanopore sequencing is gaining ground in the field of rapid tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics. The purpose of this study was to complete a protocol to guide the conduct of a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the accuracy of nanopore sequencing for the rapid diagnosis of TBM.
methodsIn accordance with the Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines, we completed this protocol, which was also registered on the PROSPERO platform. We will search the EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for literature that evaluated the accuracy of nanopore sequencing for rapid diagnosis of TBM and screen them according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and qualified literature will be extracted with relevant data for further analysis. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) will be used for evaluating the methodological quality of included studies. Stata (V 15.0; Stata Corp., College Station, TX, the USA) with midas module will be used to perform relevant meta-analysis. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by I2 statistics. When significant heterogeneity exists between studies, we will conduct meta-regression analyses, subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses to further explore the sources of heterogeneity.
conclusionWe completed this study protocol, and this systematic review and meta-analysis will be the first systematic evaluation of the role of nanopore sequencing in the rapid diagnosis of TBM, which will allow clinicians to have a better understanding of the test.
trial registrationSystematic review registration PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42024549837.
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.