ArticleFolia microbiologica2024
Use of pus metagenomic next-generation sequencing for efficient identification of pathogens in patients with sepsis.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Metagenomic analysis reveals severity-dependent microbial succession and correlation with host inflammatory response in oral and maxillofacial space infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The positive detection rate of blood metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) was still too low to meet clinical needs, while pus from the site of primary infection may be advantageous for identification of pathogens. To assess the value of mNGS using pus in patients with sepsis, thirty-five samples were collected. Pathogen identification and mixed infection diagnosis obtained by use of mNGS or cultivation methods were compared. Fifty-three aerobic or facultative anaerobes, 59 obligate anaerobes and 7 fungi were identified by the two methods. mNGS increased the accuracy rate of diagnosing aerobic or facultative anaerobic infections from 44.4% to 94.4%; mNGS also increased the sensitivity of diagnosing obligate anaerobic infections from 52.9% to 100.0%; however, mNGS did not show any advantage in terms of fungal infections. Culture and mNGS identified 1 and 24 patients with mixed infection, respectively. For obligate anaerobes, source of microorganisms was analyzed. The odontogenic bacteria all caused empyema (n = 7) or skin and soft tissue infections (n = 5), whereas the gut-derived microbes all caused intra-abdominal infections (n = 7). We also compared the clinical characteristics of non-obligate anaerobic and obligate anaerobic infection groups. The SOFA score [9.0 (7.5, 14.3) vs. 5.0 (3.0, 8.0), P = 0.005], procalcitonin value [4.7 (1.8, 39.9) vs. 2.50 (0.7, 8.0), P = 0.035], the proportion of septic shock (66.7% vs. 35.3%, P = 0.044) and acute liver injury (66.7% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.018) in the non-obligate anaerobic infection group were significantly higher than those in the obligate anaerobic infection group. In patients with sepsis caused by purulent infection, mNGS using pus from the primary lesion may yield more valuable microbiological information.
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.