ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of plasma and blood cell samples in metagenomic next-generation sequencing for identification of the causative pathogens of fever.
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.
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.
- Application value and challenges associated with plasma cell-free DNA metagenomic sequencing technology in the diagnosis of infections in patients with hematological disorders.Blood science (Baltimore, Md.) · 2026Review
- Metagenomics next-generation sequencing of plasma combined with blood cells for improving the prognosis of early infection in patients with hematologic disorders: a real-world cohort study in northern China.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Refining the Clinical Utility of Plasma Microbial Cell-Free DNA Sequencing in High-Risk Population of Infection: A Narrative Review.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Review
- A comprehensive evaluation of plasma metagenomics sequencing for the diagnosis of suspected infection in pediatric patients with hematologic diseases.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Hematologic cancers and infections: how to detect infections in advance and determine the type?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of plasma DNA has become an attractive diagnostic method for infectious diseases; however, the rate of false-positive results is high. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mNGS in plasma versus blood cell samples for immunocompromised children with febrile diseases. Methods: The results of conventional microbiological test (CMT) and mNGS using plasma and blood cells in 106 patients with 128 episodes of febrile diseases from the Department of Hematology/Oncology were analyzed and described. Results: The positivity rates for CMT and mNGS of plasma and blood cells were 35.9 %, 84.4 % and 46.9 %, respectively (P < 0.001). Notably, mNGS identified multiple pathogens in a single specimen in 68.5 % of plasma samples and 38.3 % of blood cell samples (P < 0.001). Furthermore, plasma and blood cell mNGS identified causative pathogens in 58 and 46 cases, accounting for 53.7 % and 76.7 % of the mNGS-positive cases for each sample type, respectively (P = 0.002). By integrating results from both plasma and blood cell samples, causative pathogens were identified in 77 cases (60.2 %), enhancing sensitivity to 87.5 % but reducing specificity to 15.0 %, compared to plasma (65.9 % sensitivity and 20.0 % specificity) and blood cell samples (52.3 % sensitivity and 80.0 % specificity). Conclusions: mNGS of plasma is sensitive but has a high false-positive rate, while mNGS of blood cells has low sensitivity but higher specificity.
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.