Evidence Hub

Diagnostic yield of nine user-friendly bioinformatics tools for predicting Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug resistance: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Yali Chen, Yu Lin He, Victor Næstholt Dahl, Kan Yu, Yanan Zhang, Cui-Ping Guan, Mao‐Shui Wang

PLOS Global Public Health, 2025

8 citations

Abstract

To compare the diagnostic yield of various bioinformatics tools for predicting Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug resistance. A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies reporting the effectiveness of bioinformatic tools for predicting resistance to anti-tuberculosis (TB) drugs. Data were collected and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROCs) analysis were performed, and superiority index (SI) and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Thirty-three studies evaluated 9 different bioinformatics tools for predicting resistance to 14 anti-TB drugs. NMA and SROCs demonstrated that TBProfiler, TGS-TB, Mykrobe, PhyResSE, and SAM-TB all exhibited satisfactory performance. Remarkably, TBProfiler stood out with its exceptional ability to predict resistance to the majority of anti-TB drugs, including isoniazid (SI: 3.39 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20, 11.00]; AUC: 0.97 [0.95, 0.98]), rifampicin (SI: 6.38 [0.60, 15.00]; AUC: 0.99 [0.98, 1.00]), ethambutol (SI: 5.15 [0.60, 13.00]; AUC: 0.96 [0.94, 0.97]), streptomycin (SI: 3.67 [0.60, 11.00]; AUC: 0.97 [0.95, 0.98], amikacin (SI: 2.49 [0.14, 11.00]; AUC: 0.97 [0.96, 0.99]), kanamycin (SI: 2.26 [0.14, 9.00]; AUC: 0.98 [0.97, 0.99]), levofloxacin (SI: 1.87 [0.11, 9.00]; AUC: 0.95 [0.93, 0.97]), and prothionamide (SI: 2.73 [0.20, 7.00]; AUC: 0.87…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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