ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Clinical application of targeted next-generation sequencing in pneumonia diagnosis among cancer patients.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Pilot Study ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical diagnostic value of targeted next generation sequencing for lower respiratory tract infection: a retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of percutaneous paramedian small-angle lateral intervertebral foramen Kambin's triangle approach for lumbar puncture biopsy combined with tNGS-based multimodal etiological diagnosis in early spinal infection: a multicenter retrospective diagnostic yield study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of targeted next-generation sequencing and conventional tests for pathogen detection in community-acquired and severe community-acquired pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Enhancing upper respiratory tract infection detection: exploring qPCR negative respiratory samples using targeted next-generation sequencing.Infection · 2025Article
- Advances in pathogen detection ofInfectious medicine · 2025Review
- Toxoplasma gondii infection diagnosed by tNGS in a patient with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a case report.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Construction and validation of a predictive model for severe pneumonia risk using respiratory pathogen nucleic acid Ct values combined with host immune biomarkers.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Comparative and clinical impact of targeted next-generation sequencing in pediatric pneumonia diagnosis and treatment.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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer patients are highly susceptible to infections due to their immunocompromised state from both the malignancy and intensive treatments. Accurate and timely identification of causative pathogens is crucial for effective management and treatment. Targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) has become an important tool in clinical infectious disease diagnosis because of its broad microbial detection range and acceptable cost. However, there is currently a lack of systematic research to evaluate the diagnostic value of this method in cancer patients. Methods: To evaluate the diagnostic value of tNGS for cancer patients with pneumonia, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 148 patients with suspected pneumonia who were treated at the Henan Cancer Hospital. The tNGS results were compared with conventional microbiological tests (CMT) and clinical diagnoses based on symptoms and imaging studies to assess the diagnostic performance of tNGS in cancer patients with pneumonia. Results: Among these 148 patients, 130 were ultimately diagnosed with pneumonia. tNGS demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (84.62% vs. 56.92%) and diagnostic accuracy (85.81% vs. 62.16%) compared to the CMT method. The tNGS method identified more pathogens than CMT method (87.50% vs 57.14%), regardless of whether they were bacteria, fungi, or viruses, primarily due to its broader pathogen detection range and higher sensitivity compared to the CMT method. tNGS had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for Conclusion: tNGS demonstrates higher sensitivity and a broader pathogen detection spectrum compared to CMT, making it a valuable diagnostic tool for managing pneumonia in cancer 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.