ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2024
Diagnostic value of third-generation nanopore sequencing in extrapulmonary tuberculosis.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance of third-generation sequencing for tuberculous pericarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Application Research of Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Technology Based on Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis and Drug-Resistance Detection.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Analysis of clinical and imaging features and prognosis of patients positive forFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to explore the accuracy of third-generation nanopore sequencing to diagnose extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB). Methods: Samples were collected from the lesions of 67 patients with suspected EPTB admitted between April 2022 and August 2023. Nanopore sequencing, acid-fast bacilli (AFB) staining, DNA testing, and X-pert and mycobacterial cultures were performed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for different diagnostic methods, and their diagnostic accuracies were compared. Results: Nanopore sequencing demonstrated the highest correct diagnosis rate among 50 positive EPTB cases, independently diagnosing 19 positive cases missed by conventional methods. Its sensitivity (62.00%), specificity (94.10%), PPV (96.90%), NPV (45.70%) and AUC (0.781, 95% CI: 0.67-0.89) were superior to those of conventional methods, such as AFB staining, DNA testing, X-pert, and solid culture, indicating its significantly efficient advantage in EPTB detection. Conclusion: Nanopore sequencing technology significantly outperforms conventional methods such as AFB staining, DNA testing, X-pert, and mycobacterial culture to diagnose EPTB, promising to improve the diagnosis of EPTB.
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.