ArticleInfection and drug resistance2023
Diagnostic Efficacy of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Patients with Spinal Infections: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional microbial culture in spinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) versus tissue culture technique (TCT) in diagnosis of spinal infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in diagnosing 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
- Post-vertebroplasty lumbar spondylodiscitis due toFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Pathogen Detection in Spinal Infections: Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Conventional Microbiological Methods.Current medical science · 2025Article
- Clinical Features and Treatment Differences Among Tuberculous, Brucellosis, and Pyogenic Spondylitis: A Cohort Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- The clinical management and efficacy of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in patients with pyogenic spinal infection: a single-center cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the clinical identification of spinal infection-associated pathogens.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Research progress of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in infectious diseases of the spine: a systematic review.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseReview
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Early diagnosis of spinal infections remains challenging, and emerging metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) technology holds promise in addressing this issue. The aim of this study is to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of mNGS in spinal infections. Patients and Methods: A total of 78 cases with suspected spinal infections were enrolled in this study, all of whom underwent laboratory, histopathological and mNGS examinations upon admission. Lesion samples were obtained by surgical or C-arm-guided puncture. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of culture and mNGS were calculated for statistical analysis. Results: With histopathological results as the reference, the included 78 patients were categorized into 50 cases in the spinal infection group and 28 cases in the aseptic group. The sensitivity (84%) and negative predictive value (77.14%) of mNGS were significantly higher than those of culture (32% and 44.26%, respectively), whereas no significant differences were observed in terms of specificity and positive predictive value. In the subgroup analysis for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the sensitivity of mNGS (90.91%) and T-spot (90.91%) was significantly higher than that of culture (0). Additionally, mNGS demonstrated markedly higher specificity (100%) compared to T-spot (85.07%). Conclusion: This study underscores the substantial advantages of mNGS in terms of diagnostic accuracy and bacterial coverage for spinal infections. The findings provide compelling clinical evidence that supports the enhanced diagnostic efficacy of mNGS.
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.