Table 3.
Comparison of the performance in detecting pathogens between nanopore amplicon sequencing and conventional culture.
| Comparison | Number of patients | Nanopore-sequencing | Conventional culture | P values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All samples | 56 | 47 (83.9%) | 25 (44.6%) | <0.001 |
| Subgroup by pathogens | ||||
| Fastidious pathogens* | 56 | 8 (14.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0.006 |
| Co-infections | 56 | 27 (48.2%) | 7 (12.5%) | <0.001 |
| Bacteria | 56 | 42 (75.0%) | 19 (33.9%) | <0.001 |
| Fungi | 56 | 16 (28.6%) | 8 (14.3%) | 0.065 |
| Viruses | 56 | 10 (17.9%) | 0 (0%) | 0.001 |
| Subgroup by sample types | ||||
| Non-blood samples | 43 | 42 (97.7%) | 25 (58.1%) | <0.001 |
| BALF | 16 | 16 (100%) | 11 (68.8%) | 0.043 |
| Blood | 13 | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0.039 |
| Sputum | 13 | 12 (92.3%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0.03 |
| Urine | 7 | 7 (100%) | 4 (57.1%) | 0.192 |
| Other samples# | 7 | 7 (100%) | 4 (57.1%) | 0.192 |
*Fastidious pathogens included streptococcus pneumoniae, haemophilus influenzae, and moraxellacatarrhalis. #Other samples included bile, pleural fluid, peritoneal fluid, and nasal secretions.