ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Comparison of the Impact of tNGS with mNGS on Antimicrobial Management in Patients with LRTIs: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical diagnostic value of targeted next generation sequencing for lower respiratory tract infection: a retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing technology in hematologic malignancy patients with sepsis following antibiotic use.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Comparison of the diagnostic capabilities of tNGS and mNGS for pathogens causing lower respiratory tract infections: a prospective observational study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Observational
- Targeted next-generation sequencing using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples for diagnosing pulmonary infections: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: tNGS and mNGS are valuable tools for diagnosing pathogens in lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), which subsequently influence treatment strategies. However, the impact of tNGS and mNGS on antimicrobial stewardship in patients with LRTIs remains unclear. Methods: Patients diagnosed with LRTIs who underwent tNGS or mNGS between June 2021 and January 2024 were included. Patients who underwent both tNGS and conventional microbiologic tests (CMTs) were grouped into the tNGS group, the others were divided into the mNGS group. Then, the diagnostic efficacy of tNGS and mNGS was compared, along with their impact on antimicrobial management and clinical outcomes. Results: 548 patients with an initial diagnosis of LRTIs who underwent tNGS or mNGS were evaluated. Finally, 321 patients were analyzed, with 117 patients in tNGS group and 204 patients in mNGS group. The overall pathogen detection rates for tNGS and mNGS were 89.74% and 89.71% ( Conclusion: tNGS and mNGS demonstrate comparable overall pathogen yield rates in patients with LRTIs. Furthermore, tNGS is also comparable to mNGS in terms of adjusting antimicrobial treatments and clinical outcomes, tNGS meets the clinical needs of most patients with LRTIs and can be firstly used for these patients.
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.