ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2025
Evaluating the Diagnostic Utility of 16S Oxford Nanopore Technology Sequencing in Patients With Central Nervous System Infections and Its Usefulness in Antimicrobial Stewardship.
Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 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.
- A nested PCR-based point-of-care multiplex test for detection of bacterial pathogens in cerebrospinal fluids.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- No evidence of hepatitis E virus-associated central nervous system infections in a Vietnamese multicenter cohort.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Analysis of clinical and imaging features and prognosis of patients positive forFrontiers 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCentral nervous system (CNS) infections pose a significant public health challenge in resource-limited settings. Traditional culture-based and targeted molecular diagnostic methods have limitations in sensitivity and speed. This study retrospectively analyzed the data and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from our previous study to assess the diagnostic efficacy of untargeted 16S Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT) sequencing compared to conventional CSF culture methods, with the goal of improving diagnostic accuracy, reducing time to treatment, and enhancing patient outcomes.
methodsA total of 329 patients from 4 hospitals were enrolled in the study. CSF samples were collected and processed for both CSF culture and 16S ONT sequencing. DNA were extracted from CSF and amplified for 16S rRNA sequencing using the MinION platform. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess pathogen detection rates and the potential impact of sequencing on antimicrobial stewardship.
resultsOf the 329 samples, 40 (12%) were positive for bacterial or fungal pathogens. 16S ONT detected pathogens in 28 samples (9%), while CSF culture identified pathogens in 23 samples (7%). 16S ONT sequencing identified 17 pathogens not detected by CSF culture, including Streptococcus suis and Acinetobacter baumannii. Based on 16S ONT findings, 61% of patients were found to have received inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy and could have benefited from improved antimicrobial management, including de-escalation in 11, escalation in 5, and adjustments in 2 cases.
conclusions16S ONT sequencing showed higher sensitivity and diagnostic yield than CSF culture, providing clinical insights for managing CNS infections through targeted antibiotic use and enhanced antimicrobial stewardship in resource-limited settings.
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.