ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
A one-year hospital system review of plasma next-generation sequencing in a mixed population.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the use of plasma next-generation sequencing (NGS) and determine if it provided additional information from routine tests or lead to change in antimicrobial management. Design and Setting: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with a NGS test performed who were admitted to a hospital health system in the greater Houston area between May 2022 and May 2023. Patients: In total, 143 NGS tests were ordered in the span of one year for 135 unique patients. Most patients were ≥ 18 years (74.1%), White/Caucasian (43.7%), male (61.5%), and immunocompetent (54.1%). Eight patients had repeat tests during the study period, four being after an initial rejected test, and the rest being greater than 7 days from the initial test. Results: Of the 139 NGS tests performed, 56 (40%) were positive. When compared to routine testing, 49 (35%) were negative when routine testing was negative, 15 (11%) positive were concordant with routine testing, 29 (21%) positive were discordant from routine testing, 17 (12%) negative while routine testing was positive, and 29 (21%) were positive while routine testing was negative. Documented changes in antimicrobial due to NGS occurred after 16 (13.6%) tests, with the majority of these changes occurring in immunocompromised patients (14/16 [88%]). Conclusions: NGS provided additional data when compared to routine testing but rarely resulted in antimicrobial changes. The majority of changes occurred in immunocompromised patients. Diagnostic stewardship is a vital component for this type of NGS testing and others in which guidelines do not exist.
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.