Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36180859›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

Inconsistency analysis between metagenomic next-generation sequencing results of cerebrospinal fluid and clinical diagnosis with suspected central nervous system infection.

Jin Wang, Jun Ye, Liqi Yang, Xiangfeng Chen, Haoshu Fang, Zhou Liu, Guomei Xia, Yafei Zhang, Zhenhua Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jin WangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, China.
Jun YeDepartment of Infectious Diseases, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, China.
Liqi YangDepartment of Infection Management, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Xiangfeng ChenDepartment of Infection Management, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Haoshu FangDepartment of Pathophysiology, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Zhou LiuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Guomei XiaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, China.
Yafei ZhangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, China.
Zhenhua ZhangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, China. zzh1974cn@163.com.
Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University · CNAnhui Medical University · CN

Funding

Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation 2108085MH298the Scientific research project of the Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University 2019GMFY02, 2021lcxk027
6 · The paper itself

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

Central Nervous System InfectionsMetagenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityCentral nervous system infectionClinical diagnosisEvaluation processInconsistency analysisMetagenomic second-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID36180859
PMCPMC9523998
OpenAlexW4298140824

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.