ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Nanopore targeted sequencing in lower respiratory infections: a retrospective study on diagnostic applications, clinical characterization, and antimicrobial guidance.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the pathogen detection and diagnostic performance of Nanopore targeted sequencing (NTS) versus conventional microbiological tests (CMTs) in patients with suspected lower respiratory infections (LRIs). It also explores the clinical characteristics of patients with discrepant detection results and analyzes the clinical significance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) gene detection using NTS. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with suspected LRIs admitted to the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine at Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital from January 2023 to January 2024. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and sputum samples were collected from enrolled patients and subjected to both CMTs and NTS. Results: This retrospective study included 70 suspected LRIs patients (66 BALF, 4 sputum samples), with 56 diagnosed as LRIs, 12 as non-infectious diseases, and 2 undetermined. CMTs detected 14 pathogens, while NTS identified 76. NTS showed higher complete (73.21% vs. 16.07%) and partial (23.21% vs. 35.71%) diagnostic rates than CMTs. Diagnostic metrics favored NTS: sensitivity (96.43% vs. 69.64%), NPV (75.00% vs. 32.00%), Youden index (0.464 vs. 0.363), and AUC (0.732 vs. 0.682), though CMTs had higher specificity (66.67% vs. 50.00%) and PPV (90.70% vs. 90.00%). Patients with concordant positive results (CMTs+NTS+) exhibited more severe clinical features and inflammatory markers than NTS-single positive cases, and had higher exposure to invasive procedures-an confirmed independent risk factor. NTS detected 16 resistance genes in 15 patients, with high ESKAPE pathogen coverage. Conclusion: NTS overcomes the technical limitations of traditional methods for fastidious pathogens (e.g., intracellular bacteria, mycobacteria) and mixed infections, providing robust technical support for precision anti-infective therapy and complex infection pathogen tracing. Notably, NTS is particularly suitable for early diagnosis in patients with mild symptoms or intact immune function. Compared with CMTs, NTS's highly efficient and sensitive detection capabilities hold significant practical implications for early infection source isolation, nosocomial outbreak prevention, and optimization of antibacterial drug management strategies.
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.