ArticlePloS one2025
The diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing in Tuberculous Lymphadenitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
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 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.
- Evaluation of the laboratory performance of MolecuTech®REBA MTB-MDR kit for the detection of multidrug resistant tuberculosis.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2026Article
- Utility of cell-free DNA in diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculous lymphadenitis (TL) is a common case of extrapulmonary tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB). The current use of nanopore sequencing in TL is limited. The aim of our study is to complete a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol to assess the performance of nanopore sequencing in TL.
methodsEnglish databases (including Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase) and Chinese databases (including Wanfang Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) will be searched for literature related to the research topic. We designed eligibility criteria based on PICT (Population, Index Test, Comparator Test and Target Condition). We will extract relevant data from the included articles when they have been identified. The quality of the studies will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We will use midas package in STATA for the calculation of the pooled effect values and the corresponding forest plots when the final number of included studies is more than four, and Meta-DiSc for the calculation of the pooled effect values and the forest plots when the number of included studies is less than four. When the results of different reference gold standards are reported simultaneously in the same literature, we will extract the corresponding TP, FP, FN, and TN values according to the different reference gold standards and analyze them independently. I2 statistic will be used to quantify inter-study heterogeneity. If substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%) is detected, potential sources will be investigated through subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis.
conclusionWe conducted this protocol according to the guidelines and submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal to improve our protocol through peer review and ultimately better guide the completion of the systematic review and meta-analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42024595521.
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.