ArticleInfection and drug resistance2022
Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for the Diagnosis of Suspected Opportunistic Infections in People Living with HIV.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive Pathogen Spectrum Analysis Using mNGS in AIDS Patients With Pulmonary Infections: Diagnostic Value and Clinical Implications.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Diagnosis and Infection Risk Factor Analysis in AECOPD Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples for pathogen detection in children with severe or refractory pneumonia.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in detectingFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of microorganisms and drug-resistance mutations detected by probe-capture metagenomics among HIV-infected patients with pneumonia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Pathogen Diagnosis Value of Nanopore Sequencing in Severe Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia Patients.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The diagnosis of suspected opportunistic infections in HIV patients is challenging due to the wide range of potential causes. This study used mNGS to analyse specimens of suspected opportunistic infections in HIV patients from a single centre to explore this method's applicability as a diagnostic tool compared to that of CMTs. Methods: We retrospectively investigated 46 suspected opportunistic infections in people living with HIV(PLWH) Hospitalized at Hangzhou Xixi hospital from January 2020 to August 2021. In total, we collected 49 samples (3 patients provided 2 samples) and sent them out for mNGS. Results: mNGS had a better detection rate for fungi and nontuberculous mycobacteria than that of CMTs. Specifically, the diagnostic detection rate of fungi (11 vs 19, P<0.05) and nontuberculous mycobacteria (1 vs 6, p<0.05) was significantly higher; there was no difference in detection rate for other pathogens (bacteria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, or viruses). The sensitivity of mNGS was 90.91%, 50%, 0%, 100%, and 100% for detecting fungi, bacteria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, nontuberculous mycobacteria, and viruses, respectively; the corresponding specificities were 74.29%, 97.73%, 86.36%, 86.67%, and 91.11%. Conclusion: mNGS technology provides an alternative and promising method of identifying suspected opportunistic infections in PLWH. Thus, the best diagnosis strategy may be using a combination of mNGS and CMTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.