Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39258254›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2024

Comparative analysis of metagenomic and targeted next-generation sequencing for pathogens diagnosis in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimens.

Weijie Sun, Lin Zheng, Le Kang, Chen Chen, Likai Wang, Lingling Lu, Feng Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. CD4Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Weijie Sun *Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.
Lin Zheng *Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.
Le KangInfection Technology Platform, Dian Diagnostics Group Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China.
Chen ChenInfection Technology Platform, Dian Diagnostics Group Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China.
Likai WangInfection Technology Platform, Dian Diagnostics Group Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China.
Lingling LuInfection Technology Platform, Dian Diagnostics Group Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China.
Feng WangClinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although the emerging NGS-based assays, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS), have been extensively utilized for the identification of pathogens in pulmonary infections, there have been limited studies systematically evaluating differences in the efficacy of mNGS and multiplex PCR-based tNGS in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) specimens. Methods: In this study, 85 suspected infectious BALF specimens were collected. Parallel mNGS and tNGS workflows to each sample were performed; then, we comparatively compared their consistency in detecting pathogens. The differential results for clinically key pathogens were confirmed using PCR. Results: The microbial detection rates of BALF specimens by the mNGS and tNGS workflows were 95.18% (79/83) and 92.77% (77/83), respectively, with no significant difference. mNGS identified 55 different microorganisms, whereas tNGS detected 49 pathogens. The comparative analysis of mNGS and tNGS revealed that 86.75% (72/83) of the specimens were complete or partial concordance. Particularly, mNGS and tNGS differed significantly in detection rates for some of the human herpesviruses only, including Conclusions: Overall, the performance of mNGS and multiplex PCR-based tNGS assays was similar for bacteria and fungi, and tNGS may be superior to mNGS for the detection of DNA viruses. No significant differences were seen between the two NGS assays compared to PCR.

Indexed as

Bronchoalveolar Lavage FluidHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMetagenomicsAdultAgedBacteriaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionRespiratory Tract InfectionsVirusesYoung Adultbronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF)diagnosticsmetagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS)pathogentargeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS)

Identifiers

PMID39258254
PMCPMC11385274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.