ArticleInfection and drug resistance2024
An Investigation into Diagnostic Strategies for Central Nervous System Infections Through the Integration of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing and Conventional Diagnostic Methods.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intraoperative Cytokines and Postcraniotomy Infection in Benign Brain Tumors: An Exploratory Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The optimal strategy for detecting central nervous system infections (CNSI) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples remains unclear. Methods: In a one-year, multicenter retrospective study, we examined the efficacy of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in comparison to conventional pathogen diagnostic techniques for CSF in diagnosing CNSI. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Youden index for each diagnostic approach. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was determined to assess the diagnostic performance of each method. Results: The study included 68 patients, comprising both adults and children, who were suspected of having CNSI. Through the application of comprehensive clinical interpretation (CCI), the sensitivity and specificity of mNGS were found to be 67.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.85-80.87%) and 45.8% (95% CI: 27.89-64.92%), respectively. In comparison, traditional pathogenic diagnostic methods indicated that the culture method demonstrated a sensitivity of 10.6% (95% CI: 4.63-22.6%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 84.54-100%). Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of the peripheral blood nucleated cell count were determined to be 34.0% (95% confidence interval: 22.17-48.33%) and 57.1% (95% confidence interval: 36.54-75.53%), respectively. CSF nucleated cell count demonstrated a sensitivity of 66.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51.67-77.83%) and a specificity of 61.9% (95% CI: 40.87-79.25%). In comparison, the CSF protein content exhibited a sensitivity of 63.8% (95% CI: 49.54-76.03%) and a specificity of 57.1% (95% CI: 36.54-75.53%). When combining mNGS with traditional methodologies, the overall sensitivity increased to 91.3% (95% CI: 79.67-96.56%), although the specificity was reduced to 18.2% (95% CI: 7.31-38.51%). The area under the ROC curve for culture, peripheral blood nucleated cell count, mNGS, CSF nucleated cell count, and CSF protein content were 0.8088, 0.6038, 0.6103, 0.5588, and 0.5588, respectively. The variation in CSF nucleated cell count did not significantly affect the diagnostic efficacy of mNGS. Conclusion: Currently, both mNGS and traditional diagnostic methods encounter substantial challenges in diagnosing CNSI.
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.