↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic value of a nanopore sequencing assay of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in pulmonary tuberculosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic value of a nanopore sequencing assay of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in pulmonary tuberculosis
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12890-023-02337-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhifeng Liu, Yang Yang, Qingfeng Wang, Lei Wang, Wenjuan Nie, Naihui Chu

Abstract

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of a nanopore sequencing assay of PCR products from a M. tuberculosis complex-specific region for testing of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples or sputum samples from suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) patients and compare the results to results obtained for MGIT and Xpert assays. Cases with suspected PTB (n = 55) were diagnosed from January 2019 to December 2021 based on results of nanopore sequencing, MGIT culture, and Xpert MTB/RIF testing of BALF and sputum samples collected during hospitalization. Diagnostic accuracies of assays were compared. Ultimately, data from 29 PTB patients and 26 non-PTB cases were analyzed. PTB diagnostic sensitivities of MGIT, Xpert MTB/RIF, and nanopore sequencing assays were 48.28%, 41.38%, and 75.86%, respectively, thus demonstrating that nanopore sequencing provided greater sensitivity than was provided by MGIT culture and Xpert assays (P < 0.05). PTB diagnostic specificities of the respective assays were 65.38%, 100%, and 80.77%, which corresponded with kappa coefficient (κ) values of 0.14, 0.40, and 0.56, respectively. These results indicate that nanopore sequencing provided superior overall performance as compared to Xpert and MGIT culture assays and provided significantly greater PTB diagnostic accuracy than Xpert and sensitivity comparable to that of the MGIT culture assay. Our findings suggest that improved detection of PTB in suspected cases was achieved using nanopore sequencing-based testing of BALF or sputum samples than was achieved using Xpert and MGIT culture-based assays, and nanopore sequencing results alone cannot be used to rule out PTB.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 20%
Unknown 5 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2023.
All research outputs
#17,350,824
of 25,460,914 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,304
of 2,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,449
of 424,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#29
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,460,914 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,272 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.