ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Clinical value of quantitative PCR in diagnosis of suspected mycobacterial pulmonary infections.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the difficulty in clinically distinguishing pulmonary infections caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and Non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), the study utilizes quantitative PCR (qPCR) technology to simultaneously detect MTB, Mycobacterium abscessus complex (MABC), Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), and Mycobacterium kansasii(M. kansasii),to explore its clinical value in diagnosing of patients suspected mycobacterial pulmonary infections.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 102 patients suspected of mycobacterial pulmonary infections. Samples of sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid were extracted for testing with acid-fast staining (AFS), qPCR, and metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS). Assess the diagnostic performance of AFS, qPCR, and mNGS for four types of mycobacteria based on comprehensive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) CRS composite criteria, non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) diagnostic and treatment guidelines, as well as clinical observations.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AUC of qPCR for mycobacteria (MTB, MABC, MAC) were 90.00% (76.33–97.20), 100.00% (94.22–100.00), 100.00% (99.90–100.00), 93.93% (85.95–97.51), and 0.950 (0.888–0.983), respectively. For mNGS, the corresponding estimates were 87.50% (73.19–95.81), 96.77% (88.82–99.60), 94.59%(81.66–98.56),92.30% (84.07–96.46), and 0.921(0.851–0.965), respectively. The research showed that the sensitivity and specificity of qPCR and mNGS method for detecting mycobacteria are higher than AFS; and there was no statistical difference in the diagnostic performance for mycobacteria between qPCR and mNGS, but qPCR was superior to mNGS in specific values.
conclusionCompared with AFS, qPCR has higher sensitivity and specificity but statistical significance needs to be assessed with larger sample sizes for mycobacteria identification. In this regard, qPCR and mNGS demonstrate exhibit similar performance. However, qPCR is less expensive and more convenient for pathogen detection, which make it a promising lower-cost alternative diagnostic method for patients suspected of mycobacterial pulmonary infections in resource-limited 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.