ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Comparative analysis of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for pathogenic identification in clinical body fluid samples.
Article in BMC microbiology, 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.
- Intra-amniotic infection: diagnosis, nomenclature, clinical significance, management, and microbiologic tools used for the diagnosis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2026Review
- Comparative genomic characterization and antimicrobial resistance of bacteremia-causingMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Laboratory diagnosis of brucellosis: evolving synergy between serological testing and next-generation sequencing.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- The value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in lower respiratory tract infections among critically ill patients in the ICU.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Decoding the microbial blueprint of pancreatic cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in deep neck space infections: a retrospective study of 32 patients.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Observational
- Clinicopathologic Features of Genitourinary Malakoplakia and Analytical Utility of the MetaPath Assay.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Editorial: Targeted metagenomics in pathogen detection.Frontiers in cellular and infection 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in identifying pathogens from clinical body fluid samples, with a specific focus on the application of microbial cell-free DNA (cfDNA) mNGS.
methodsA total of 125 clinical body fluid samples were collected. All samples underwent mNGS targeting whole-cell DNA (wcDNA), with 30 samples also analyzed for cfDNA mNGS and 41 subjected to 16S rRNA NGS for comparative analysis. Patient clinical data, including culture results, were obtained from electronic medical records.
resultsIn comparison to cfDNA mNGS, the mean proportion of host DNA in wcDNA mNGS was 84%, significantly lower than the 95% observed in cfDNA mNGS (p < 0.05). Using culture results as a reference, concordance rates were 63.33% (19/30) for wcDNA mNGS and 46.67% (14/30) for cfDNA mNGS. Additionally, wcDNA mNGS showed greater consistency in bacterial detection with culture results, achieving a rate of 70.7% (29/41) compared to 58.54% (24/41) for 16S rRNA NGS. The sensitivity and specificity of wcDNA mNGS for pathogen detection in body fluid samples were 74.07% and 56.34%, respectively, when compared to culture results.
conclusionWhole-cell DNA mNGS demonstrates significantly higher sensitivity for pathogen detection and identification compared to both cfDNA mNGS and 16S rRNA NGS in clinical body fluid samples, particularly those associated with abdominal infections. However, the compromised specificity of wcDNA mNGS highlights the necessity for careful interpretation in clinical practice.
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.