Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29055712›Full record

ReviewVirus research2018

A decade of RNA virus metagenomics is (not) enough.

Alexander L Greninger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Virus research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Picobirnavirus: how do you find where it's hiding?Critical reviews in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Horizons of the Future: Preparedness and Response.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A Systematic Review on the Viruses ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023
    Review
  20. Article

18 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

1 author.

Alexander L GreningerVirology Division, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is hard to overemphasize the role that metagenomics has had on our recent understanding of RNA virus diversity. Metagenomics in the 21st century has brought with it an explosion in the number of RNA virus species, genera, and families far exceeding that following the discovery of the microscope in the 18th century for eukaryotic life or culture media in the 19th century for bacteriology or the 20th century for virology. When the definition of success in organism discovery is measured by sequence diversity and evolutionary distance, RNA viruses win. This review explores the history of RNA virus metagenomics, reasons for the successes so far in RNA virus metagenomics, and methodological concerns. In addition, the review briefly covers clinical metagenomics and environmental metagenomics and highlights some of the critical accomplishments that have defined the fast pace of RNA virus discoveries in recent years. Slightly more than a decade in, the field is exhausted from its discoveries but knows that there is yet even more out there to be found.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationPhylogenyAnimalsBibliometricsBiological EvolutionHumansMetagenomicsMolecular TypingPlantsProkaryotic CellsRNA VirusesTerminology as TopicVirus DiseasesConjoined circlesMetagenomicsRNA virusViral discovery

Identifiers

PMID29055712
PMCPMC7114529

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.