ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
A retrospective analysis comparing metagenomic next-generation sequencing with conventional microbiology testing for the identification of pathogens in patients with severe infections.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing versus traditional microbiological testing in native pyogenic spinal infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Clinical Impact of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in CNS Infections: A Diagnostic Pathway and Resource Utilization Modeling Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- From microbial dynamics to risk prediction: a nomogram-based model for hospital-acquired infections in rehabilitation settings.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
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
Introduction: The application value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in detecting pathogenic bacteria was evaluated to promote the rational and accurate use of antibiotics. A total of 180 patients with severe infections were included in this study. Methods: Based on their different symptoms, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or blood samples were collected for conventional microbiological testing (CMT) and mNGS. Results: The results indicated that the etiological diagnosis rate of mNGS (78.89%) was significantly higher than that of CMT (20%) (p<0.001). Notably, mNGS exhibited greater sensitivity towards rare pathogens such as Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex, and Legionella pneumophila, which were undetectable by CMT. Additionally, 64 cases underwent blood culture, BALF culture, and mNGS testing. Analysis revealed that the positive rate of blood culture (3.1%) was lower than that of BALF (25%), and the positive rate of CMT from both types was significantly lower than that of mNGS (89.1%) (p<0.001). In this study, 168 mNGS results were accepted, and 116 patients had their antibiotic therapy adjustment based on mNGS. Paired analysis indicated that white blood cell count (WBC), procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and neutrophil (NEU) percentage provided valuable therapeutic guidance. The survival rate of patients was 55.36%, influenced by patient physical condition and age. Discussion: Our data indicated that mNGS had significant auxiliary value in the clinical diagnosis and treatment for critically ill patients, especially for those with negative CMT results and clinically undefined infections. mNGS could broaden the detection scope, especially for special pathogens, and improve the detection rate, providing powerful assistance for early clinical diagnosis and treatment.
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.