Evidence Hub

Open-access genomic drug resistance prediction tools for Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dewaele K, Jouego C, Asim A, Laenen L, Meehan C, André E

Journal of clinical microbiology, 2026

Abstract

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) accelerates drug-susceptibility testing (DST) in Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb). Open-access software tools have become widely available, but the sources of real-world performance variability remain uncharacterized. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of open-access, independently validated WGS-based DST prediction tools. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was performed for six maintained tools (TBProfiler, Mykrobe, PhyResSE, MTBseq, GenTB, and SAM-TB). Bivariate meta-regression identified covariates associated with performance variation. Thirty-nine studies comprising 144,623 genomes were included. For the two most extensively validated tools, TBProfiler and Mykrobe, pooled rifampicin sensitivity was 95.4% (95% CI: 93.5-96.7) and 93.7% (92.0-95.1), with a specificity of 97.3% (95.7-98.3) and 97.0% (94.8-98.3), respectively. For isoniazid, the sensitivity was 92.0% (90.4-93.3) and 88.2% (85.5-90.4) and specificity 97.3% (96.0-98.2) and 97.5% (95.8-98.5). For ethambutol, the specificity was heterogeneous across tools (86.5%-95.4%); for pyrazinamide, the sensitivity varied widely (49.9%-80.6%). For fluoroquinolones, both sensitivity and specificity approached 90%, with heterogeneity. For newer agents, data scarcity precluded meaningful assessment. Meta-regression identified rifampicin resistance prevalence as the dominant predictor of decreased specificity across first-line drugs (β -1.5 to -3.6 on logit…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free