ArticleBMC medical genomics2024
Development of a clinical metagenomics workflow for the diagnosis of wound infections.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiology, pathogen spectrum, and antimicrobial resistance of infections in burn patients stratified by total body surface area: a bicenter study with evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- The transformative impact of ultra-rapid nanopore sequencing in precision medicine.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Opportunities and Challenges of Multiomics for Discovery and Monitoring of Human Pathogens.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
- Academic and clinical perspectives of metagenome sequencing as a diagnostic tool for infectious disease: an interpretive phenomenological study.BMC infectious diseases · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWound infections are a common complication of injuries negatively impacting the patient's recovery, causing tissue damage, delaying wound healing, and possibly leading to the spread of the infection beyond the wound site. The current gold-standard diagnostic methods based on microbiological testing are not optimal for use in austere medical treatment facilities due to the need for large equipment and the turnaround time. Clinical metagenomics (CMg) has the potential to provide an alternative to current diagnostic tests enabling rapid, untargeted identification of the causative pathogen and the provision of additional clinically relevant information using equipment with a reduced logistical and operative burden.
methodsThis study presents the development and demonstration of a CMg workflow for wound swab samples. This workflow was applied to samples prospectively collected from patients with a suspected wound infection and the results were compared to routine microbiology and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).
resultsWound swab samples were prepared for nanopore-based DNA sequencing in approximately 4 h and achieved sensitivity and specificity values of 83.82% and 66.64% respectively, when compared to routine microbiology testing and species-specific qPCR. CMg also enabled the provision of additional information including the identification of fungal species, anaerobic bacteria, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes and microbial species diversity.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that CMg has the potential to provide an alternative diagnostic method for wound infections suitable for use in austere medical treatment facilities. Future optimisation should focus on increased method automation and an improved understanding of the interpretation of CMg outputs, including robust reporting thresholds to confirm the presence of pathogen species and AMR gene identifications.
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.