ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2022
Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Traditional Laboratory Methods for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infection in Liver Transplantation.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polymicrobial Multidrug-Resistant Infection and Fatal Bowel Ischemic Perforation After Urgent Heart Transplantation in a VA-ECMO-Bridged Recipient: A Case Report.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Clinical prognostic value of TTV and HCMV but not EBV for outcomes in hospitalized HIV-positive patients.Biosafety and health · 2025Article
- A nomogram for predicting early bacterial infection after liver transplantation: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Positive Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing of Renal Lavage Fluid Associates with Delayed Graft Function in Kidney Transplants from Donors After Circulatory Death: A Retrospective Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of mNGS and Traditional Culture Methods in Pathogen Detection for Pulmonary Infections.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Prevalence of bacteria, fungi, and virus coinfections with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant among patients with severe COVID-19 in Guangzhou, China, winter 2022.Biosafety and health · 2024Article
- Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the clinical diagnosis of infectious diseases after allo-HSCT: a single-center analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Metagenomic versus targeted next-generation sequencing for detection of microorganisms in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid among renal transplantation recipients.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Clinical Application of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) in Patients with Early Pulmonary Infection After Liver Transplantation.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Next Generation Sequencing Outperforms Cultivation-Based Methods for Detection of Bacterial Genera in Bile After Liver Transplantation.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.