ArticleJMIR research protocols2024
Metagenomics in the Diagnosis of Pneumonia: Protocol for a Systematic Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of ICU Length of Stay in Patients with Severe Pneumonia: A Six-Year Retrospective Cohort Study Focusing on Traditional Chinese Medicine Adjuvant Therapy.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Next generation sequencing and beyond: a review of genomic sequencing methods.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundCausative pathogens are currently identified in only a minority of pneumonia cases, which affects antimicrobial stewardship. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has potential to enhance pathogen detection due to its sensitivity and broad applicability. However, while studies have shown improved sensitivity compared with conventional microbiological methods for pneumonia diagnosis, it remains unclear whether this can translate into clinical benefit. Most existing studies focus on patients who are ventilated, readily allowing for analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF). The impact of sample type on the use of metagenomic analysis remains poorly defined. Similarly, previous studies rarely differentiate between the types of pneumonia involved-community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)-which have different clinical profiles.
objectiveThis study aims to determine the clinical use of mNGS in CAP, HAP, and VAP, compared with traditional microbiological methods.
methodsWe aim to review all studies (excluding case reports of a series of fewer than 10 people) of adult patients with suspected or confirmed pneumonia that compare metagenomic analysis with traditional microbiology techniques, including culture, antigen-based testing, and polymerase chain reaction-based assays. Relevant studies will be identified through systematic searches of the Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Screening of titles, abstracts, and subsequent review of eligible full texts will be done by 2 separate reviewers (SQ and 1 of AL, CJ, or CH), with a third clinician (ES) providing adjudication in case of disagreement. Our focus is on the clinical use of metagenomics for patients with CAP, HAP, and VAP. Data extracted will focus on clinically important outcomes-pathogen positivity rate, laboratory turnaround time, impact on clinical decision-making, length of stay, and 30-day mortality. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on the type of pneumonia (CAP, HAP, or VAP) and sample type used. The risk of bias will be assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. Outcome data will be combined in a random-effects meta-analysis, and where this is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be undertaken.
resultsThe searches were completed with the assistance of a medical librarian on January 13, 2024, returning 5750 records. Screening and data extraction are anticipated to be completed by September 2024.
conclusionsDespite significant promise, the impact of metagenomic analysis on clinical pathways remains unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the use of this technique will alter depending on whether the pneumonia is a CAP, HAP, or VAP or the sample type that is collected. This systematic review will assess the current evidence base to support the benefit of clinical outcomes for metagenomic analysis, depending on the setting of pneumonia diagnosis or specimen type used. It will identify areas where further research is needed to advance this methodology into routine care.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023488096; https://tinyurl.com/3suy7cma. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57334.
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.