ArticlePloS one2025
Accuracy of next-generation sequencing for rapid diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
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
backgroundEarly, rapid and precise diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy is difficult. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been used for the diagnosis of TB in some high-income countries. We completed the protocol of the study in order to better guide the systematic review and meta-analysis for evaluating the role of NGS in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy, which was the purpose of the current study.
methodsWe designed and drafted this protocol as per the Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Three English databases (Cochrane Library, Embase and Medline via PubMed) and two Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database) will be used to search for relevant studies. We followed the PICT principles to develop the eligibility criteria. Once the final compliant literature is identified, we will extract the valid information from the literature for statistical analysis. We will assess the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. When there are more than 4 eligible studies, we will use Stata (version 15.0; Stata Corp., College Station, TX, the USA) with midas module to conduct the relevant meta-analysis and plot the relevant forest plots and curves. When there are less than 4 eligible studies, we will use Meta-DiSc (version 1.4) to perform the associated meta-analysis and plot the associated forest plots and curves. We will use the I2 statistic to assess heterogeneity between included studies. We will conduct meta-regression analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis to explore possible sources of heterogeneity when significant heterogeneity exists. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42024568791.
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.