ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Comparison and evaluation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and real-time PCR for the detection of
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.
- Nanopore Sequencing in Mycobacterial Diagnostics: Clinical and Laboratory Roles of mNGS and tNGS.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of Methods: Samples from patients undergoing routine clinical testing for MTB using both mNGS and RT-PCR were included. The diagnostic agreement between the two methods was assessed. Discordant results were further validated using the Xpert MTB/RIF assay on cryopreserved aliquots. Results: A total of 556 samples from suspected TB patients were analyzed. The majority were lower respiratory tract specimens, including bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF; 94.06%), sputum (3.24%), and extrapulmonary samples (2.70%). Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF and clinical diagnosis as composite reference standard, both mNGS and RT-PCR showed high sensitivity (92.31% and 90.38%, respectively) and perfect specificity (100%). There was a high level of agreement between mNGS and RT-PCR, with a positive agreement of 82.69%, negative agreement of 98.25%, overall agreement of 98.38%, and a Conclusion: Both RT-PCR and mNGS demonstrate high overall agreement for MTB detection, with concordance strongly influenced by microbial burden. These findings support the complementary use of these methods in the diagnosis of TB.
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.