ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing, Xpert MTB/RIF and acid-fast staining for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy and empyema.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The detection of Methods: This study enrolled 154 patients suspected of having tuberculosis. Fresh tissues, pleural fluid or pus were collected from these patients and performed mNGS, Xpert, and acid-fast staining (AFS) tests. Their detection performance was statistically analyzed and compared. Results: Overall, the positivity rate of mNGS was 48.05% (74/154), Xpert was 44.44% (44/99), and AFS was 57.34% (82/143). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mNGS were 55.22%, 100%, 100% and 25%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of Xpert were 48.35%, 100%, 100%, 18.97%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of acid-fast stain were 58.59%, 53.33%, 91.46%, 13.11%, respectively. A total of 93 samples underwent all three types of testing, and 45.16% (42/93) were completely consistent in the results of the three tests. The analysis results of these samples showed that the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of mNGS were 65.88%, 100%, 100%, 21.62%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of Xpert were 49.41%, 100%, 100%, 15.69%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of acid-fast stain were 57.65%, 62.50%, 94.23%, 12.20%, respectively. The sensitivity of mNGS was significantly higher than that of Xpert (P=0.01). Conclusions: Our research results indicate that mNGS and AFS have higher sensitivity compared to Xpert, while mNGS and Xpert have higher specificity.
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.