ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2024
Exploring the pathogen diagnosis and prognostic factors of severe COVID-19 using metagenomic next-generation sequencing: A retrospective study.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to identify pathogens and factors that predict the outcome of severe COVID-19 by utilizing metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) technology. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 56 severe COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital between December 2022 and March 2023. We analyzed the pathogen types and strains detected through mNGS and conventional microbiological testing and collected general patient information. Results: In this study, 42 pathogens were detected using mNGS and conventional microbiological testing. mNGS had a significantly higher detection rate of 90.48% compared to 71.43% for conventional testing (P=0.026). A total of 196 strains were detected using both methods, with a significantly higher detection rate of 70.92% for mNGS compared to 49.49% for conventional testing (P=0.000). The 56 patients were divided into a survival group (33 cases) and a death group (23 cases) based on clinical outcomes. The survival group had significantly lower age, number of pathogens detected by mNGS, number of pathogens detected by conventional testing, APACHE-II score, SOFA score, high-sensitivity troponin, creatine kinase-MB subtype, and lactate dehydrogenase compared to the death group (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that these factors were risk factors for mortality in severe COVID-19 patients (P<0.05). In contrast, ROC curve analysis revealed that these factors had diagnostic values for mortality, with AUC values ranging from 0.657 to 0.963. The combined diagnosis of these indicators had an AUC of 0.924. Conclusions: The use of mNGS technology can significantly enhance the detection of pathogens in severe cases of COVID-19 and also has a solid ability to predict clinical outcomes.
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.