ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
Development of an automated amplicon-based next-generation sequencing pipeline for rapid detection of bacteria and fungi directly from clinical specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cell-free DNA metagenomic next generation sequencing for the diagnosis of infectious diseases: a retrospective assessment of clinical utility in a tertiary and quaternary care facility.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- The role of rapid multiplex molecular syndromic panels in the clinical management of infections in critically ill patients: an experts-opinion document.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The timely identification of microbial pathogens is essential to guide targeted antimicrobial therapy and ultimately, successful treatment of an infection. However, the yield of standard microbiology testing (SMT) is directly related to the duration of antecedent antimicrobial therapy as SMT culture methods are dependent on the recovery of viable organisms, the fastidious nature of certain pathogens, and other pre-analytic factors. In the last decade, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has been successfully utilized as a diagnostic tool for various applications within the clinical laboratory. However, mNGS is resource, time, and labor-intensive-requiring extensive laborious preliminary benchwork, followed by complex bioinformatic analysis. We aimed to address these shortcomings by developing a largely Automated targeted Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (tmNGS) PipeLine for rapId inFectIous disEase Diagnosis (AMPLIFIED) to detect bacteria and fungi directly from clinical specimens. Therefore, AMPLIFIED may serve as an adjunctive approach to complement SMT. This tmNGS pipeline requires less than 1 hour of hands-on time before sequencing and less than 2 hours of total processing time, including bioinformatic analysis. We performed tmNGS on 50 clinical specimens with concomitant cultures to assess feasibility and performance in the hospital laboratory. Of the 50 specimens, 34 (68%) were from true clinical infections. Specimens from cases of true infection were more often tmNGS positive compared to those from the non-infected group (82.4% vs 43.8%, respectively, IMPORTANCE: To our knowledge, this represents the first application of an automated sequencing and bioinformatics pipeline in an exclusively pediatric population. Next-generation sequencing is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and requires experienced personnel; perhaps contributing to hesitancy among clinical laboratories to adopt such a test. Here, we report a strong case for use by removing these barriers through near-total automation of our sequencing pipeline.
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.