Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41098739›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025

Evaluation of non-invasive diagnostic tests for

Yongwei Fan, Zhenyun Tan, Zhenfa Wang, Huaqin Pan, Jingrun Zhou, Jiong Yang, Guqin Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yongwei Fan *Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Zhenyun Tan *Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Zhenfa Wang *Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Huaqin PanInstitute of Hepatobiliary Diseases and Transplantation ICU, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Jingrun ZhouDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Jiong YangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Guqin ZhangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurate and timely identification of Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of adult patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) from January 2024 to October 2024. All enrolled patients underwent bronchoalveolar lavage fluid metagenomic next-generation sequencing (BALF-mNGS) and had received at least one of two non-invasive tests (NAAT or serum IgM antibody assays). The sensitivity and specificity of NAAT and serum IgM antibody assays were calculated against the final diagnosis. A non-inferiority test was used to determine whether the sensitivity of NAAT or serum IgM antibody assays was not inferior to that of mNGS. Results: Among 594 patients included in the analysis, 60 were diagnosed with MPP based on a composite reference standard that included laboratory testing results and adjudication by two senior clinicians in accordance with clinical and radiological findings. The sensitivity and specificity of NAAT were 74.1% and 99.3%, respectively, while those of serum IgM antibody assays were 23.6% and 98.0%. McNemar's test revealed a statistically significant difference in sensitivity between mNGS and the two non-invasive tests (NAAT and serum IgM antibody assays) ( Conclusion: In clinical practice, a positive result from either NAAT or serum IgM antibody assays can serve as reliable adjunct evidence for diagnosing MPP. However, in cases with a high clinical suspicion of MPP, negative results from both methods are not sufficient to rule out the diagnosis. For MPP, mNGS remains the most effective diagnostic method compared to non-invasive testing alternatives.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineMycoplasma pneumoniaePneumonia, MycoplasmaAdultAgedAntibodies, BacterialBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidCommunity-Acquired InfectionsFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansImmunoglobulin MMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, BacterialImmunoglobulin Mcommunity-acquired pneumoniadiagnostic accuracyIgM antibodymetagenomic next-generation sequencingMycoplasma pneumoniaenasopharyngeal swab nucleic acid testing

Identifiers

PMID41098739
PMCPMC12518258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.