ArticleJournal of advanced research2024
Clinical evaluation of cell-free and cellular metagenomic next-generation sequencing of infected body fluids.
Article in Journal of advanced research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of plasma cell-free DNA metagenomic next-generation sequencing in patients with suspected infections and exploration of clinical scenarios-a retrospective study from a single center.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Application value and challenges associated with plasma cell-free DNA metagenomic sequencing technology in the diagnosis of infections in patients with hematological disorders.Blood science (Baltimore, Md.) · 2026Review
- Lower Respiratory Microbiome Dysbiosis Is Associated With Poor Prognosis in Acute Severe Lower Respiratory Tract Infection.MedComm · 2026Article
- The leaky gut and microbiome in critical illness: emerging insights into microbial "translocation".Current opinion in critical care · 2026Review
- Nucleosome-targeted host DNA depletion enables automated plasma metagenomic sequencing for sensitive detection of bloodstream pathogens.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- The diagnostic and prognostic utility of blood metagenomic next-generation sequencing for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of the timing of mNGS-guided antibiotic adjustment on clinical outcomes in ICU patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia: a retrospective study.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2026Article
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Clinical Utility of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Diagnosing Central Nervous System Infections in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients: A Retrospective and Prospective Cohort Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Refining the Clinical Utility of Plasma Microbial Cell-Free DNA Sequencing in High-Risk Population of Infection: A Narrative Review.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Review
- Complementary mNGS and traditional testing for bloodstream infections.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2026Review
- Targeted next-generation sequencing in sepsis-associated lymphopenia: a concordance analysis with conventional microbiological testing.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Metagenomics next-generation sequencing of plasma combined with blood cells for improving the prognosis of early infection in patients with hematologic disorders: a real-world cohort study in northern China.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Clinical value of radial endobronchial ultrasound combined with metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the malignant tumors patients with pulmonary infection.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Next-generation sequencing in the etiological diagnosis of severe childhood pneumonia.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- 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
- Bacterial cell-free DNA profiling reveals the co-elevation of multiple bacteria in newborn foals with suspected sepsis.iScience · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Sequencing Technologies for Detecting Antimicrobial Resistance in Bloodstream Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Changes of respiratory microbiota associated with prognosis in pulmonary infection patients with invasive mechanical ventilation-supported respiratory failure.Annals of medicine · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrevious studies have evaluated metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) for pathogen detection in blood and body fluid samples. However, no study has assessed the diagnostic efficacy of mNGS using cellular DNA.
objectivesThis is the first study to systematically evaluate the efficacy of cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS for pathogen detection.
methodsA panel of seven microorganisms was used to compare cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS assays concerning limits of detection (LoD), linearity, robustness to interference, and precision. In total, 248 specimens were collected between December 2020 and December 2021. The medical records of all the patients were reviewed. These specimens were analysed using cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS assays, and the mNGS results were confirmed using viral qPCR, 16S rRNA, and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) amplicon next-generation sequencing.
resultsThe LoD of cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS was 9.3 to 149 genome equivalents (GE)/mL and 27 to 466 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL, respectively. The intra- and inter-assay reproducibility of cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS was 100%. Clinical evaluation revealed that cfDNA mNGS was good at detecting the virus in blood samples (receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC), 0.9814). In contrast, the performance of cellular DNA mNGS was better than that of cfDNA mNGS in high host background samples. Overall, the diagnostic efficacy of cfDNA combined with cellular DNA mNGS (ROC AUC, 0.8583) was higher than that of cfDNA (ROC AUC, 0.8041) or cellular DNA alone (ROC AUC, 0.7545).
conclusionOverall, cfDNA mNGS is good for detecting viruses, and cellular DNA mNGS is suitable for high host background samples. The diagnostic efficacy was higher when cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS were combined.
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.