ArticleInfection and drug resistance2022
Analysis of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing Results of 25 Pus Samples.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in patients with connective tissue diseases co-infections: a single-center study from southern hospital in China.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Targeted next-generation sequencing using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples for diagnosing pulmonary infections: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing and targeted metagenomic next-generation sequencing in diagnosing pulmonary infections in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Clinical Efficacy and Diagnostic Value of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Pathogen Detection in Patients with Suspected Infectious Diseases: A Retrospective Study from a Large Tertiary Hospital.Infection and drug resistance · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the clinical value of detecting pathogens in pus samples by metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS). Methods: The 25 pus samples from infected patients were collected in this research. The positive rate and consistency of pathogenic bacteria detected by mNGS and conventional methods were compared. The pathogen types detected by the two methods were analyzed. Furthermore, the modifications of antibiotic treatment therapy were also evaluated based on mNGS results. Results: The sensitivity of mNGS method in detecting pathogenic bacteria in pus samples was better than that of conventional method (96% vs 40%; P < 0.01). Only 10 samples were detected pathogens by conventional methods, but 24 samples were detected by mNGS method. In specific, the results of conventional methods showed 10 samples had 11 kinds of pathogenic bacteria, of which 9 samples were single pathogen and 1 sample had two kinds of pathogenic bacteria. The results of mNGS method showed 24 samples were detected with 54 kinds of pathogenic bacteria, of which 15 samples were detected with single pathogen, and 9 samples were detected with two or more kinds of pathogenic bacteria. The two methods had 9(36%) consistent results, 14 (56%) completely different results, and 2 (8%) partially consistent results, and the kappa value was 0.19. Notably, mNGS could detect viruses, anaerobic bacteria, and other uncommon pathogens simultaneously. Conclusion: The application of mNGS in the detection of pus specimens from different parts not only have high accuracy rate and also reduce the turnaround time of diagnosis. In addition, the performance of mNGS detection of anaerobic bacteria and caustic bacteria is better than conventional methods. The mNGS diagnosis in pus sample may play an important role in clinical diagnosis and treatment strategy decisions.
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.