ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of mNGS with conventional methods for diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis: a retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The future of fungal diagnostics: What's next in laboratory testing for invasive fungal infection?Medical mycology · 2026Review
- Current status and prospects in diagnosis of major opportunistic fungal infections among HIV-positive population in south provinces of China and neighboring countries that are suffering high prevalence of AIDS.Biosafety and health · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the performance of a novel chemiluminescence immunoassay for cryptococcal antigen detection.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- A multimarker panel for diagnosis and prognosis prediction of fungal infections.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Cerebrospinal fluid cytokine-driven immune responses in HIV-negative cryptococcal meningitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Chronic meningitis: diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Comparative Evaluation of mNGS and Traditional Culture Methods in Pathogen Detection for Pulmonary Infections.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- A children patient with intracranial infection after brain surgery associated with elevated Torque Teno Virus.IDCases · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in the diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis is relatively under characterized. Here, we retrospectively evaluated data from cryptococcal meningitis patients who were tested using mNGS and/or routine testing, including fungal culture, India ink staining, and cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing. The performance of mNGS was then assessed. Initial cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were collected from 65 patients with suspected central nervous system (CNS) infection and tested using conventional tests and/or mNGS. mNGS offers a culture-independent approach, facilitating a rapid and unbiased detection of a broad spectrum of pathogens. Patients with bacterial tuberculous or viral meningitis were used as mNGS-positive controls and one autoimmune encephalitis patient was used as an mNGS-negative control. In the 45 patients diagnosed with cryptococcal meningitis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and concordance rate of mNGS were 92%, 100%, 100%, 90.9%, and 95.6%, respectively. Compared to conventional methods, the sensitivity of mNGS was slightly lower than CrAg tests (96.7%) but higher than India ink (79.5%) and culturing (63.4%). Of the two negative mNGS cases (2/25, 8.0%), one was positive by India ink staining, culture, and CrAg testing, while the other was positive only by CrAg testing. A combination of mNGS and conventional methods enhanced the detection rate to 100%. Our study demonstrates that both CrAg and mNGS offer excellent diagnostic accuracy for cryptococcal meningitis, and utilizing both tests can enhance clinical assessment and patient management.
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.