ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022
Inconsistency analysis between metagenomic next-generation sequencing results of cerebrospinal fluid and clinical diagnosis with suspected central nervous system infection.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical utility of CSF metagenomic next-generation sequencing in suspected CNS infection: performance against a composite reference standard and read-count stratification.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Clinical Impact of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in CNS Infections: A Diagnostic Pathway and Resource Utilization Modeling Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Clinical characteristics and prognostic factors analysis in patients with post-neurosurgical intracranial infection caused by Acinetobacter baumannii.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Shotgun Metagenomic Sequencing Analysis as a Diagnostic Strategy for Patients with Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Metagenomic Next-generation Sequencing in Patients With Infectious Meningoencephalitis: A Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Optimizing metagenomic next-generation sequencing in CNS infections: a diagnostic model based on CSF parameters.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- The application value and limitations of metagenomic detection technology based on cerebrospinal fluid samples in suspected central nervous system infection: a retrospective study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Fungi identified via next-generation sequencing in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid among patients with COVID-19: a retrospective study.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Development of an automated amplicon-based next-generation sequencing pipeline for rapid detection of bacteria and fungi directly from clinical specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of metagenomic sequencing in patients with suspected infection: a large-scale retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- An Investigation into Diagnostic Strategies for Central Nervous System Infections Through the Integration of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing and Conventional Diagnostic Methods.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Deciphering Microbiota of Acute Upper Respiratory Infections: A Comparative Analysis of PCR and mNGS Methods for Lower Respiratory Trafficking Potential.Advances in respiratory medicine · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, with the rapid progress of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), inconsistency between mNGS results and clinical diagnoses has become more common. There is currently no reasonable explanation for this, and the interpretation of mNGS reports still needs to be standardised.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 47 inpatients with suspected central nervous system (CNS) infections, and clinical data were recorded. The final diagnosis was determined by an expert group based on the patient's clinical manifestation, laboratory examination, and response to treatment. mNGS results were compared with the final diagnosis, and any inconsistencies that occurred were investigated. Finally, the credibility of mNGS results was evaluated using the integral approach, which consists of three parts: typical clinical features, positive results with the traditional method, and cerebrospinal fluid cells ≥ 100 (× 10
resultsForty-one patients with suspected CNS infection were assigned to infected (ID, 31/41, 75.61%) and non-infected groups (NID, 10/41, 24.39%) after assessment by a panel of experts according to the composite diagnostic criteria. For mNGS-positive results, 20 of the 24 pathogens were regarded as contaminants when the final score was ≤ 1. The remaining 11 pathogens detected by mNGS were all true positives, which was consistent with the clinical diagnosis when the score was ≥ 2. For mNGS negative results, when the score was ≥ 2, the likelihood of infection may be greater than when the score is ≤ 1.
conclusionThe integral method is effective for evaluating mNGS results. Regardless of whether the mNGS result was positive or negative, the possibility of infection was greater when the score was ≥ 2. A negative mNGS result does not necessarily indicate that the patient was not clinically infected, and, therefore, clinical features are more important.
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.