Table 3.
Performance of mNGS and conventional detection methods in patients with spinal TB.
| Methods | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | p value | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%, N, 95% CI) | (%, N, 95% CI) | (%, N, 95% CI) | (%, N, 95% CI) | (sensitivity) | (specificity) | |
| mNGS | 94.7% (36/38) | 100.0% (62/62) | 100.0% (36/36) | 96.9% (62/64) | – | – |
| (82–99) | (94–100) | (90–100) | (89–100) | |||
| Xpert | 94.6% (35/37) | 100.0% (56/56) | 100.0% (35/35) | 96.6% (56/58) | p = 1.000a | – |
| (82–99) | (94–100) | (90–100) | (88–100) | |||
| MGIT 960 culture | 45.9% (17/37) | 100.0% (41/41) | 100.0% (17/17) | 67.2% (41/61) | χ2 = 68.997 | – |
| (30–63) | (91–100) | (80–100) | (55–79) | p < 0.001b | ||
| Pathological examination | 67.9% (19/28) | 100.0% (51/51) | 100.0% (19/19) | 85.0% (51/60) | p = 0.006c | – |
| (48–84) | (93–100) | (82–100) | (76–94) | |||
| T-SPOT.TB | 89.2% (33/37) | 78.3% (47/60) | 71.7% (33/46) | 92.2% (47/51) | p = 0.430d | χ2 = 15.035 |
| (75–97) | (68–89) | (57–84) | (85–100) | p < 0.001d |
N: number of patients, PPV: positive predictive value, NPV: negative predictive value, CI: confidence interval, amNGS vs. Xpert, bmNGS vs. MGIT 960 culture, cmNGS vs. pathological examination, dmNGS vs. T-SPOT.TB.