ArticleHeliyon2024
Diagnostic value of DNA or RNA-based metagenomic next-generation sequencing in lower respiratory tract infections.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Consistency between metagenomic next-generation sequencing versus traditional microbiological tests for infective disease: systemic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Case Report: Sequential mNGS captures fatal HSV-1 reactivation after intestinal obstruction-associated ARDS in a 91-year-old.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Investigating the Pulmonary Host Response ofBiomedicines · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of RNA-mNGS and DNA-mNGS in differentiating bacterial infection from colonization in the lower respiratory tract.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Deciphering the pathogen heterogeneity for precise diagnosis and personalized therapeutics of infections after kidney transplantation: insights from metagenomic next-generation sequencing.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of RNA-mNGS and DNA-mNGS workflow in bacterial pneumonia, fungal pneumonia and tuberculosis. Methods: A total of 134 cases suspected pneumonia undergoing both DNA and RNA based mNGS of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and also traditional etiological examination were evaluated retrospectively.Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy rate of DNA and RNA based mNGS were estimated. Results: In the diagnosis performance of bacterial pathogens in LRTIs,the specificity of RNA-mNGS was higher than that of DNA-mNGS(82.3 % vs. 61.9 %, Conclusions: RNA-mNGS may reduced the misdiagnosis rate of bacterial and fungal pathogens in LRTIs.Compared to RNA-mNGS, DNA-mNGS may could improve the diagnostic rate of tuberculosis.
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.