ArticleJournal of translational medicine2024
Study on the application of microfluidic-based in vitro diagnostic technology in pathogenic detection of respiratory tract infections.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the clinical application value of microfluidic-based in vitro diagnostic (IVD) technology in pathogenic detection of respiratory tract infections.
methodsA total of 300 clinical samples, including blood, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and pleural effusion, were collected from patients with respiratory tract infections. The samples were randomly divided into three groups: A, B, and C, with 100 cases in each group. Group A used traditional microbiological detection methods, Group B used metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) technology, and Group C used both microfluidic-based IVD technology and traditional microbiological detection methods to detect pathogenic microorganisms in the clinical samples. The positive detection rate, detection time, and detection cost were compared among the groups. The diagnostic performance of each group was compared using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve.
resultsTraditional microbiological detection identified 38 positive samples (38%), including 45 pathogens; mNGS technology identified 95 positive samples (95%), including 210 pathogens; microfluidic-based IVD technology identified 96 positive samples (96%), including 158 pathogens. Microfluidic-based IVD technology had a significantly higher positive detection rate for pathogenic microorganisms compared to traditional culture techniques (96% vs 38%, χ2 = 122.0, P < 0.01), and it was also faster and cheaper than mNGS technology. ROC analysis showed that compared to traditional microbiological culture results, microfluidic-based IVD technology had significantly increased sensitivity and specificity, similar to mNGS technology.
conclusionIn respiratory infectious diseases, microfluidic-based IVD technology had a higher detection rate for pathogenic microorganisms than traditional culture methods, and it had advantages in detection time and cost compared to mNGS technology. It could also detect critical drug-resistant genes of pathogens. Hence, microfluidic-based IVD technology can be a viable option for diagnosis and treatment of respiratory infectious diseases.
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.