ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2023
Clinical application of amplification-based versus amplification-free metagenomic next-generation sequencing test in infectious diseases.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling the Future of Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis: The Transformative Role of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Culture-Negative Cases.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025Review
- CRISPR/Cas12a-Chemiluminescence Cascaded Bioassay for Amplification-Free and Sensitive Detection of Nucleic Acids.Biosensors · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recently, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has been used in the diagnosis of infectious diseases (IDs) as an emerging and powerful tool. However, whether the complicated methodological variation in mNGS detections makes a difference in their clinical performance is still unknown. Here we conducted a method study on the clinical application of mNGS tests in the DNA detection of IDs. Methods: We analyzed the effect of several potential factors in the whole process of mNGS for DNA detection on microorganism identification in 98 samples of suspected ID patients by amplification-based mNGS. The amplification-based and amplification-free mNGS tests were successfully performed in 41 samples. Then we compared the clinical application of the two mNGS methods in the DNA detection of IDs. Results: We found that a higher concentration of extracted nucleic acid was more conducive to detecting microorganisms. Other potential factors, such as read depth and proportion of human reads, might not be attributed to microorganism identification. The concordance rate of amplification-based and amplification-free mNGS results was 80.5% (33/41) in the patients with suspected IDs. Amplification-based mNGS showed approximately 16.7% higher sensitivity than amplification-free mNGS. However, 4 cases with causative pathogens only detected by amplification-based mNGS were finally proved false-positive. In addition, empirical antibiotic treatments were adjusted in 18 patients following mNGS testing with unexpected pathogens. Conclusions: Amplification-based and amplification-free mNGS tests showed their specific advantages and disadvantages in the diagnosis of IDs. The clinical application of mNGS still needs more exploration from a methodological perspective. With advanced technology and standardized procedure, mNGS will play a promising role in the diagnosis of IDs and help guide the use of antibiotics.
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.