ArticleInfection and drug resistance2024
Evaluation of Different Sampling Methods Combined with Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing of Respiratory Specimens in Etiological Diagnosis of Patients with Severe Pneumonia.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the value of respiratory specimens collected via different sampling methods combined with metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in the etiological diagnosis of severe pneumonia. Methods: A total of 117 patients with severe pneumonia between 2019 and 2024 were included in this study, with 60 patients undergoing endotracheal aspiration (ETA) and 57 undergoing bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), respectively. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Both ETA and BAL samples were tested using mNGS and conventional microbiological tests (CMT) to compare the detection rates, microbial profiles and their effects on clinical outcomes. Results: The positive rates of mNGS for ETA and BAL samples were 96.7% and 80.7%, respectively, which were higher than CMT. A total of 39 pathogenic microorganisms were detected, of which Conclusion: Respiratory specimens collected by different sampling methods yield different microbial findings. ETA and BAL combined with mNGS play a role in guiding the pathogenetic diagnosis of patients with severe pneumonia. However, it is recommended that their sampling methods be determined by clinical symptoms and patient conditions.
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.