ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Clinical performance of nanopore targeted sequencing for diagnosing endophthalmitis.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. 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.
- Intra-amniotic infection: diagnosis, nomenclature, clinical significance, management, and microbiologic tools used for the diagnosis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2026Review
- Current status and prospects of nanopore sequencing technology in the detection of pathogenic microorganisms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Role of Sanger Sequencing in the Early Diagnosis of Infective Endophthalmitis: Experience From a Pilot Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- First Isolation of a Multi-azole-Resistant Aspergillus fumigatus cyp51A TRMycopathologia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRapid identification of pathogenic bacteria in the vitreous and/or aqueous humor of patients with acute clinical diagnosis of endophthalmitis via nanopore sequencing technology.
methodsWe recruited a total of 12 patients (12 eyes) who were diagnosed with endophthalmitis at an ophthalmic outpatient clinic of Peking University Third Hospital from January 2022 to October 2022. Clinical evaluation is conducted in the order of consultation, symptom evaluation, physical sign evaluation, and ophthalmic special examination, all of which are completed by the same experienced clinical physician. Finally, 19 aqueous humor and/or vitreous samples were obtained via anterior chamber wash, vitreous tap and vitrectomy. The samples were separated for cultivation, biochemical drug sensitivity identification, and targeted nanopore sequencing (NTS), and the results of nanopore sequencing were validated via Sanger sequencing.
resultsIn patients with endophthalmitis, NTS can identify infected pathogens within 8-12 h. Six samples (31.6%) were subjected to culture-based diagnosis, while NTS revealed the presence of pathogenic microorganisms in 19 samples (100%), of which bacteria and fungi were detected in three samples. A total of 19 samples were subjected to Sanger sequencing, of which 16 (84.2%) tested positive, including 6 culture-positive samples and 10 culture-negative samples, of which 5 (26.3%) were positive for two bacterial genera. In culture-positive cases, there is a high-quality match between culture and targeted nanopore sequencing.
conclusionsNTS can quickly detect pathogenic bacteria in samples from patients with endophthalmitis. Moreover, the use of vitreous and/or aqueous humor for the NTS has potential. NTS is a promising diagnostic platform for endophthalmitis, especially for mixed infections and culture-negative cases.
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.