ArticleiScience2023
Noninvasive diagnosis of secondary infections in COVID-19 by sequencing of plasma microbial cell-free DNA.
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving inter-rater reliability in radiographic edema scoring in acute respiratory failure through structured training and expert feedback.ATS scholar · 2026Article
- The bug, the burden, and the biology: beyond host-centric phenotyping in sepsis.The Journal of clinical investigation · 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
- The impact of diabetes and obesity on the severity and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2025Review
- Cytosolic nucleic acid sensing as driver of critical illness: mechanisms and advances in therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
- The endothelial-immunothrombotic storm in viral sepsis: lessons from COVID-19.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- "Now We Got Bad Blood": Beyond Phenotype Labels in an "Era" of Meta-omics in Critical Illness.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Secondary infection (SI) diagnosis in severe COVID-19 remains challenging. We correlated metagenomic sequencing of plasma microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA-Seq) with clinical SI assessment, immune response, and outcomes. We classified 42 COVID-19 inpatients as microbiologically confirmed-SI (Micro-SI, n = 8), clinically diagnosed-SI (Clinical-SI, n = 13, i.e., empiric antimicrobials), or no-clinical-suspicion-for-SI (No-Suspected-SI, n = 21). McfDNA-Seq was successful in 73% of samples. McfDNA detection was higher in Micro-SI (94%) compared to Clinical-SI (57%, p = 0.03), and unexpectedly high in No-Suspected-SI (83%), similar to Micro-SI. We detected culture-concordant mcfDNA species in 81% of Micro-SI samples. McfDNA correlated with LRT 16S rRNA bacterial burden (r = 0.74, p = 0.02), and biomarkers (white blood cell count, IL-6, IL-8, SPD, all p < 0.05). McfDNA levels were predictive of worse 90-day survival (hazard ratio 1.30 [1.02-1.64] for each log
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.