Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36203993›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022

Metagenomics next-generation sequencing for the diagnosis of central nervous system infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chunrun Qu, Yu Chen, Yuzhen Ouyang, Weicheng Huang, Fangkun Liu, Luzhe Yan, Ruoyu Lu, Yu Zeng, Zhixiong Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Diagnostic performance of FEVChronic respiratory disease
    Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Case reports in infectious diseases · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. A Rare Case ofCase reports in transplantation · 2024
    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.

Chunrun QuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yu ChenXiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yuzhen OuyangXiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Weicheng HuangXiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Fangkun LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Luzhe YanXiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Ruoyu LuXiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yu ZengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Zhixiong LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Central South University · CNXiangya Hospital Central South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: It is widely acknowledged that central nervous system (CNS) infection is a serious infectious disease accompanied by various complications. However, the accuracy of current detection methods is limited, leading to delayed diagnosis and treatment. In recent years, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has been increasingly adopted to improve the diagnostic yield. The present study sought to evaluate the value of mNGS in CNS infection diagnosis. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2022 guidelines, we searched relevant articles published in seven databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, published from January 2014 to January 2022. High-quality articles related to mNGS applications in the CNS infection diagnosis were included. The comparison between mNGS and the gold standard of CNS infection, such as culture, PCR or serology, and microscopy, was conducted to obtain true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP), and false negative (FN) values, which were extracted for sensitivity and specificity calculation. Results: A total of 272 related studies were retrieved and strictly selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, 12 studies were included for meta-analysis and the pooled sensitivity was 77% (95% CI: 70-82%, Conclusion: Overall, mNGS exhibits good sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing CNS infection and diagnostic performance during clinical application by assisting in identifying the pathogen. However, the efficacy remains inconsistent, warranting subsequent studies for further performance improvement during its clinical application. Study registration number: INPLASY202120002.

Indexed as

central nervous systemdiagnosisinfectionmeta-analysismetagenomic next-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID36203993
PMCPMC9530978
OpenAlexW4297905796

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.