ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2023
The Diagnostic Value of Blood Next-Generation Sequencing in Early Surgical Site Infection After Spine Surgery.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in spinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- Progress in diagnosis and treatment of primary spondylodiscitis: a systematic literature review.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- mNGS technique was used to analyze the microbiome structure of intervertebral disc tissue in 99 patients with degenerative disc disease.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the diagnostic value of blood next-generation sequencing (NGS) in early surgical site infection after spine surgery. Because the blood is sterile in healthy individuals, it is expected that blood NGS is both sensitive and specific for the detection of infection. Methods: A total of 28 patients with definitive spinal surgical site infections and controls (n=30) were retrospectively included. The postoperative results of NGS and culture on different samples, such as blood and drainage fluid, were obtained and compared to evaluate the diagnostic value of blood NGS. The diagnostic value parameters (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) were calculated. Results: Among the four bacteriological exam methods, blood NGS was both sensitive and specific for the determination of infection after spine surgery. The sensitivities of blood and drainage fluid NGS were similar (0.82 vs 0.89, P=0.617). However, the specificities of the two assessments differed, which were 0.97 for blood NGS and 0.40 for drainage fluid NGS (P<0.001). The sensitivities of bacterial culture were lower than those of NGS (blood: 0.82 vs 0.25, P<0.001; drainage fluid: 0.89 vs 0.61, P<0.001), regardless of the sample type. However, the specificities of bacterial culture were equal to or higher than those of NGS (blood: 0.97 vs 0.97, P=1.000; drainage fluid: 0.40 vs 0.80, P=0.002). Conclusion: This article emphasizes the superiority of blood NGS in infection detection and bacterial determination in patients undergoing spine surgery. Compared with traditional drainage fluid bacterial culture and NGS, blood NGS was more sensitive and specific, and its extensive application could be expected.
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.