Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29040428›Full record

ReviewClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2018

Understanding the Promises and Hurdles of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool for Infectious Diseases.

Patricia J Simner, Steven Miller, Karen C Carroll

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 506 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
506citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

506 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Microbial profiles in pediatric complicated appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

446 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Patricia J SimnerDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Steven MillerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Karen C CarrollDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agnostic metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has emerged as a promising single, universal pathogen detection method for infectious disease diagnostics. This methodology allows for identification and genomic characterization of bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses without the need for a priori knowledge of a specific pathogen directly from clinical specimens. Although there are increasing reports of mNGS successes, several hurdles need to be addressed, such as differentiation of colonization from infection, extraneous sources of nucleic acid, method standardization, and data storage, protection, analysis, and interpretation. As more commercial and clinical microbiology laboratories develop mNGS assays, it is important for treating practitioners to understand both the power and limitations of this method as a diagnostic tool for infectious diseases.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsAnimalsCommunicable DiseasesHumansNucleic Acid Amplification Techniques

Identifiers

PMID29040428
PMCPMC7108102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.