ArticleJournal of advanced research2022
Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection.
Article in Journal of advanced research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis caused by Ureaplasma urealyticum: A case report.Medicine · 2026Article
- Nucleosome-targeted host DNA depletion enables automated plasma metagenomic sequencing for sensitive detection of bloodstream pathogens.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Addressing the Challenges of Solid-State Nanopores: Strategies for Performance Enhancement.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Metagenomics next-generation sequencing of plasma combined with blood cells for improving the prognosis of early infection in patients with hematologic disorders: a real-world cohort study in northern China.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Complementary mNGS and traditional testing for bloodstream infections.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2026Review
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- A framework of Microbial Genomic Database for clinical metagenomic pathogen diagnosis: development and multi-cohort evaluation.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Transforming tuberculosis diagnosis with clinical metagenomics: progress and roadblocks.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Review
- Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid metagenomic datasets: a multidimensional clinical biomolecular resource.Scientific data · 2025Article
- China Expert consensus on the application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the etiological diagnosis of infections in hematological disorders (2024).Blood science (Baltimore, Md.) · 2025Article
- Unveiling the Future of Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis: The Transformative Role of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Culture-Negative Cases.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025Review
- Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Infectious Diseases: Clinical Applications, Translational Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Exploring vaginal microbiome: from traditional methods to metagenomic next-generation sequencing-a systematic review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Microbial culture vs. mNGS: diagnostic variations in periprosthetic joint infection.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Pathological and immune features of non-tuberculous mycobacteria andFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Channel selection of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in infants pathogen detection: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Case report: co-infection ofAME case reports · 2025Article
- Primary cutaneous infections with non-tuberculous mycobacteria: a report of 6 cases.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) assay for detecting infectious agents is now in the stage of being translated into clinical practice. With no approved approaches or guidelines available, laboratories adopt customized mNGS assays to detect clinical samples. However, the accuracy, reliability, and problems of these routinely implemented assays are not clear. Objectives: To evaluate the performance of 90 mNGS laboratories under routine testing conditions through analyzing identical samples. Methods: Eleven microbial communities were generated using 15 quantitative microbial suspensions. They were used as reference materials to evaluate the false negatives and false positives of participating mNGS protocols, as well as the ability to distinguish genetically similar organisms and to identify true pathogens from other microbes based on fictitious case reports. Results: High interlaboratory variability was found in the identification and the quantitative reads per million reads (RPM) values of each microbe in the samples, especially when testing microbes present at low concentrations (1 × 10 Conclusion: The high interlaboratory variability found in both identifying microbes and distinguishing true pathogens emphasizes the urgent need for improving the accuracy and comparability of the results generated across different mNGS laboratories, especially in the detection of low-microbial-biomass samples.
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.