ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Explore the Application Value of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid in the Early Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanopore Sequencing in Mycobacterial Diagnostics: Clinical and Laboratory Roles of mNGS and tNGS.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A High Sensitive Detection of Droplet Digital PCR for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Compare the diagnostic efficacy of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) with that of four traditional methods in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), and explore the application value of BALF mNGS in the early diagnosis of PTB. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 102 patients with suspected PTB in Wuming Hospital Affiliated with Guangxi Medical University from January 2021 to August 2024, among which 61 cases were PTB and 41 cases were non - PTB. Diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value [PPV/NPV], accuracy) were calculated for BALF mNGS, sputum TB-DNA, sputum acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smear, BALF AFB smear, and BALF TB-DNA, using clinical diagnosis as the reference standard. Results: BALF mNGS demonstrated a sensitivity of 75.41% (46/61), specificity of 87.80% (36/41), PPV of 90.20% (46/51), NPV of 70.59% (36/51), and accuracy of 80.39% (82/102). Its accuracy was significantly higher than sputum-based methods (53.03-58.82%, P < 0.0125) and second only to BALF TB-DNA (84.13%, P > 0.0125). BALF mNGS exhibited superior sensitivity compared to sputum TB-DNA (38.00%), sputum AFB smear (41.67%), and BALF AFB smear (41.50%) (P < 0.0125). While specificity and PPV showed no significant differences among methods, BALF mNGS had a higher NPV than sputum-based assays (53.03-54.17%) but lower than BALF TB-DNA (82.53%, P < 0.0125). Both BALF mNGS (Kappa = 0.608, P < 0.001) and BALF TB-DNA (Kappa = 0.670, P < 0.001) showed strong concordance with clinical diagnosis. Conclusion: BALF mNGS demonstrates high sensitivity and accuracy for PTB diagnosis, outperforming conventional sputum-based methods. Although BALF TB-DNA achieved the highest specificity and NPV, BALF mNGS serves as a robust supplementary tool, particularly for early-stage or paucibacillary PTB. Integration of these molecular techniques may optimize diagnostic workflows in high-TB-burden settings.
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.