Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35782119›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2022

Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Traditional Laboratory Methods for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infection in Liver Transplantation.

Jun-Feng Huang, Qing Miao, Jian-Wen Cheng, Ao Huang, De-Zhen Guo, Ting Wang, Liu-Xiao Yang, Du-Ming Zhu, Ya Cao, Xiao-Wu Huang and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jun-Feng HuangLiver Surgery Intensive Care Unit, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Qing MiaoDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jian-Wen ChengDepartment of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China.
Ao HuangDepartment of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China.
De-Zhen GuoDepartment of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China.
Ting WangLiver Surgery Intensive Care Unit, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Liu-Xiao YangLiver Surgery Intensive Care Unit, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Du-Ming ZhuLiver Surgery Intensive Care Unit, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ya CaoCancer Research Institute, Central South University; Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion, Ministry of Education, Changsha, China.
Xiao-Wu HuangDepartment of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China.
Jia FanDepartment of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China.
Jian ZhouDepartment of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China.
Xin-Rong YangDepartment of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China.
Fudan University · CNZhongshan Hospital · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has emerged as an effective method for the noninvasive and precise detection of infectious pathogens. However, data are lacking on whether mNGS analyses could be used for the diagnosis and treatment of infection during the perioperative period in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). Methods: From February 2018 to October 2018, we conducted an exploratory study using mNGS and traditional laboratory methods (TMs), including culture, serologic assays, and nucleic acid testing, for pathogen detection in 42 pairs of cadaveric liver donors and their corresponding recipients. Method performance in determining the presence of perioperative infection and guiding subsequent clinical decisions was compared between mNGS and TMs. Results: The percentage of liver donors with mNGS-positive pathogen results (64.3%, 27/42) was significantly higher than that using TMs (28.6%, 12/42; P<0.05). The percentage of co-infection detected by mNGS in liver donors was 23.8% (10/42) significantly higher than 0.0% (0/42) by TMs (P<0.01). Forty-three pathogens were detected using mNGS, while only 12 pathogens were identified using TMs. The results of the mNGS analyses were consistent with results of the TM analyses in 91.7% (11/12) of donor samples at the species level, while mNGS could be used to detect pathogens in 66.7% (20/30) of donors deemed pathogen-negative using TMs. Identical pathogens were detected in 6 cases of donors and recipients by mNGS, among which 4 cases were finally confirmed as donor-derived infections (DDIs). For TMs, identical pathogens were detected in only 2 cases. Furthermore, 8 recipients developed early symptoms of infection (<7 days) after LT; we adjusted the type of antibiotics and/or discontinued immunosuppressants according to the mNGS results. Of the 8 patients with infections, 7 recipients recovered, and 1 patient died of severe sepsis. Conclusions: Our preliminary results show that mNGS analyses can provide rapid and precise pathogen detection compared with TMs in a variety of clinical samples from patients undergoing LT. Combined with symptoms of clinical infection, mNGS showed superior advantages over TMs for the early identification and assistance in clinical decision-making for DDIs. mNGS results were critical for the management of perioperative infection in patients undergoing LT.

Indexed as

Liver TransplantationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetagenomeMetagenomicsTissue Donorsdonor-derived infectionimmunocompromised patientliver transplantationmetagenomic next-generation sequencingperioperative infection

Identifiers

PMID35782119
PMCPMC9245428
OpenAlexW4283010034

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.