Table 2.
Performance of NanoTNGS in the diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis compared with phenotypic drug susceptibility testing.
| Drugs | TP | FP | FN | TN | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | TCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIF-NanoTNGS# | 159 | 0 | 11 | 8 | 93.53% | 100% | 100% | 42.11% | 95.51% |
| RIF-Xpert# | 119 | 0 | 23 | 8 | 83.80% | 100% | 100% | 25.80% | 84.67% |
| Isoniazide | 96 | 9 | 11 | 45 | 89.72% | 83.33% | 91.43% | 80.36% | 87.58% |
| Ethambutol | 47 | 11 | 8 | 93 | 85.45% | 89.42% | 81.03% | 92.08% | 88.05% |
| Streptomycin | 37 | 8 | 13 | 102 | 74.00% | 92.73% | 82.22% | 88.70% | 86.88% |
| Fluoroquinolones | 24 | 12 | 3 | 121 | 88.89% | 90.98% | 66.67% | 97.58% | 90.63% |
#Diagnostic performance of the NanoTNGS or Xpert MTB/RIF assays for the detection of rifampicin resistance compared to a composite reference standard. The results of pDST and Xpert MTB/RIF were treated as a composite reference standard in evaluating the diagnostic performance. RIF, rifampicin. TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative. PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; TCR, total coincidence rate.