Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32661342›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2020

Metagenomics for neurological infections - expanding our imagination.

Prashanth S Ramachandran, Michael R Wilson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Rapid diagnosis ofExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Suspected encephalitis in adults.Practical neurology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

62 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

2 authors.

Prashanth S RamachandranWeill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Michael R WilsonWeill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. michael.wilson@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8705-5084

Funding

Next-Generation Diagnostics for Acute EncephalitisK08NS096117 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WILSON, MICHAEL R · 2017 to 2021
$999k
NINDS NIH HHS K08 NS096117
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the diagnosis rate for patients with encephalitis has remained poor despite advances in pathogen-specific testing such as PCR and antigen assays. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of RNA and DNA extracted from cerebrospinal fluid and brain tissue now offers another strategy for diagnosing neurological infections. Given that mNGS simultaneously assays for a wide range of infectious agents in an unbiased manner, it can identify pathogens that were not part of a neurologist's initial differential diagnosis either because of the rarity of the infection, because the microorganism has not been previously associated with a clinical phenotype or because it is a newly discovered organism. This Review discusses the technical advantages and pitfalls of cerebrospinal fluid mNGS in the context of patients with neuroinflammatory syndromes, including encephalitis, meningitis and myelitis. We also speculate on how mNGS testing potentially fits into current diagnostic testing algorithms given data on mNGS test performance, cost and turnaround time. Finally, the Review highlights future directions for mNGS technology and other hypothesis-free testing methodologies that are in development.

Indexed as

ImaginationAnimalsCentral Nervous System InfectionsComputational BiologyData Interpretation, StatisticalEncephalitisHumansMetagenomics

Identifiers

PMID32661342
PMCPMC7356134

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.