ArticleBMJ open2025
Diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing for the rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundExtrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is a serious type of tuberculosis (TB) which can cause systemic clinical manifestations. Rapid diagnosis of EPTB for intervention is of great importance. Nanopore sequencing as a third-generation gene sequencing method is a new kind of rapid TB detection. Previous studies have shown that nanopore sequencing has higher diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for TB diagnosis compared with other diagnostic methods. The aim of this research is to develop a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol for assessing the accuracy of nanopore sequencing in diagnosing EPTB. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was conducted in strict adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols guidelines. The study protocol has been prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under the unique identifier CRD42024608415. We will search Chinese databases and English databases in June 2026. Chinese databases will include Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure. English databases will include PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Adhering strictly to the reference standard outlined in this protocol, we will screen the literature. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies will be used by us to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The statistical tools used are Stata with midas commands and RevMan, and we will perform meta-analysis, generate forest plots and Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic curves. A p value of less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. If significant heterogeneity exists and there is a sufficient number of studies, we will investigate its source through subgroup analysis and meta-regression. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This investigation uses publicly accessible data repositories, exempting it from ethical review board approval requirements. On finalisation of the analysis, findings will be prepared for dissemination through submission to a reputable medical journal employing rigorous peer review processes. The study methodology adheres to established protocols for systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024608415.
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.