Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39043813›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Clinical application and evaluation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in pathogen detection for suspected central nervous system infections.

Lei Yuan, Xin Yu Zhu, Lan Min Lai, Qiang Chen, Yang Liu, Rui Zhao

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Case reports in infectious diseases · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lei YuanDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, People's Republic of China.
Xin Yu ZhuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, People's Republic of China.
Lan Min LaiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, People's Republic of China.
Qiang ChenDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, People's Republic of China.
Yang LiuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, People's Republic of China.
Rui ZhaoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, People's Republic of China. ndyfy05038@ncu.edu.cn.

Funding

Science and Technology Program of Jiangxi Traditional Chinese Medicine grant number 2021B723the National Natural Science Fund of China 82260085the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province SKJP220212485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Central nervous system Infections (CNSIs) is a disease characterized by complex pathogens, rapid disease progression, high mortality rate and high disability rate. Here, we evaluated the clinical value of metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) in the diagnosis of central nervous system infections and explored the factors affecting the results of mNGS. We conducted a retrospective study to compare mNGS with conventional methods including culture, smear and etc. 111 suspected CNS infectious patients were enrolled in this study, and clinical data were recorded. Chi-square test were used to evaluate independent binomial variables, taking p < 0.05 as statistically significant threshold. Of the 111 enrolled cases, 57.7% (64/111) were diagnosed with central nervous system infections. From these cases, mNGS identified 39.6% (44/111) true-positive cases, 7.2% (8/111) false-positive case, 35.1% (39/111) true-negative cases, and 18.0% (20/111) false-negative cases. The sensitivity and specificity of mNGS were 68.7% (44/64) and 82.9% (39/47), respectively. Compared with culture, mNGS provided a higher pathogen detection rate in CNSIs patients (68.7% (44/64) vs. 26.5% (17/64), p < 0.0001). Compared to conventional methods, positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement was 84.60% (44/52) and 66.1% (39/59) separately. At a species-specific read number (SSRN) ≥ 2, mNGS performance in the diagnosis of definite viral encephalitis and/or meningitis was optimal (area under the curve [AUC] 0.758, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.663-0.854). In bacterial CNSIs patients with significant CSF abnormalities (CSF WBC > 300*10

Indexed as

Central Nervous System InfectionsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMetagenomicsAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleMetagenomeMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultApplicationCentral nervous system infectionDiagnosisMetagenomic next-generation sequencingPathogens

Identifiers

PMID39043813
PMCPMC11266612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.