Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29740407›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2018

Overview of Virus Metagenomic Classification Methods and Their Biological Applications.

Sam Nooij, Dennis Schmitz, Harry Vennema, Annelies Kroneman, Marion P G Koopmans

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Towards an understanding of the avian virome.The Journal of general virology · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Wastewater Metavirome Diversity: Exploring Replicate Inconsistencies and Bioinformatic Tool Disparities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

8 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

5 authors.

Sam NooijEmerging and Endemic Viruses, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Dennis SchmitzEmerging and Endemic Viruses, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Harry VennemaEmerging and Endemic Viruses, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Annelies KronemanEmerging and Endemic Viruses, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Marion P G KoopmansEmerging and Endemic Viruses, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metagenomics poses opportunities for clinical and public health virology applications by offering a way to assess complete taxonomic composition of a clinical sample in an unbiased way. However, the techniques required are complicated and analysis standards have yet to develop. This, together with the wealth of different tools and workflows that have been proposed, poses a barrier for new users. We evaluated 49 published computational classification workflows for virus metagenomics in a literature review. To this end, we described the methods of existing workflows by breaking them up into five general steps and assessed their ease-of-use and validation experiments. Performance scores of previous benchmarks were summarized and correlations between methods and performance were investigated. We indicate the potential suitability of the different workflows for (1) time-constrained diagnostics, (2) surveillance and outbreak source tracing, (3) detection of remote homologies (discovery), and (4) biodiversity studies. We provide two decision trees for virologists to help select a workflow for medical or biodiversity studies, as well as directions for future developments in clinical viral metagenomics.

Indexed as

decision treepipelinesoftwarestandardizationuse caseviral metagenomics

Identifiers

PMID29740407
PMCPMC5924777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.