ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Contribution of Clinical Metagenomics to the Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Infections.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fastidious or rarely isolated gram-negative rods with a particular focus onClinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Exploring the Microbial Landscape of Bone and Joint Infections: An Analysis Using 16S rRNA Metagenome Sequencing.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- The Past, Present, and Future ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone and joint infections (BJIs) are complex infections that require precise microbiological documentation to optimize antibiotic therapy. Currently, diagnosis is based on microbiological culture, sometimes complemented by amplification and sequencing of the 16S rDNA gene. Clinical metagenomics (CMg), that is, the sequencing of the entire nucleic acids in a sample, was previously shown to identify bacteria not detected by conventional methods, but its actual contribution to the diagnosis remains to be assessed, especially with regard to 16S rDNA sequencing. In the present study, we tested the performance of CMg in 34 patients (94 samples) with suspected BJIs, as compared to culture and 16S rDNA sequencing. A total of 94 samples from 34 patients with suspicion of BJIs, recruited from two sites, were analyzed by (i) conventional culture, (ii) 16S rDNA sequencing (Sanger method), and (iii) CMg (Illumina Technology). Two negative controls were also sequenced by CMg for contamination assessment. Based on the sequencing results of negative controls, 414 out of 539 (76.7%) bacterial species detected by CMg were considered as contaminants and 125 (23.2%) as truly present. For monomicrobial infections (13 patients), the sensitivity of CMg was 83.3% as compared to culture, and 100% as compared to 16S rDNA. For polymicrobial infections (13 patients), the sensitivity of CMg was 50% compared to culture, and 100% compared to 16S rDNA. For samples negative in culture (8 patients, 21 samples), CMg detected 11 bacteria in 10 samples from 5 different patients. In 5/34 patients, CMg brought a microbiological diagnosis where conventional methods failed, and in 16/34 patients, CMg provided additional information. Finally, 99 antibiotic resistance genes were detected in 24 patients (56 samples). Provided sufficient genome coverage (87.5%), a correct inference of antibiotic susceptibility was achieved in 8/8 bacteria (100%). In conclusion, our study demonstrated that the CMg provides complementary and potentially valuable data to conventional methods of BJIs diagnosis.
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.