ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Diagnostic Performance of Clinical Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Suspected Central Nervous System Infections in a Municipal Hospital: A Retrospective Study in China.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has the potential to identify the majority of pathogens in a single test. Accurate pathogen identification is vital for central nervous system infection (CNSi). However, there are few related studies investigating in a municipal hospital. Patients and Methods: A total of 52 suspected CNSi patients were retrospectively recruited in Xinxiang central hospital between July 2019 and April 2023. The diagnostic performance of CSF mNGS, conventional microbiological tests (CMT), and the combination of CSF mNGS and CMT were evaluated by comparing to the final diagnosis. Results: Among 52 suspected CNSi patients, 35 were diagnosed as CNSi. In comparison to the final diagnosis, the area under curves (AUC) for CSF CMT, CSF mNGS, and the combination of CMT and mNGS for the diagnosis of CNSi were 0.56 (95% CI 0.4-0.72), 0.74 (95% CI 0.61-0.84), and 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.88), respectively. The sensitivities were 11.43% (95% CI 4.54%-25.95%), 48.57% (95% CI 32.99%-64.43%), and 51.43% (95% CI 35.57%-67.01%), respectively. The accuracy was 40.38 (95% CI 27.01%-54.90%), 65.38% (95% CI 50.91%-78.03%), and 67.31% (95% CI 52.89%-79.67%), respectively. Furthermore, based on CSF mNGS results, seven patients confirmed initial treatment, two escalated, and one de-escalated. Additionally, we identified the optimal cutoff values as 1.75 U/L for CSF adenosine deaminase (ADA), 75.44 U/L for CSF protein, and 185 mmH Conclusion: CSF mNGS showed superior diagnostic performance in CNSi and hence could serve as a complementary tool to CMT and conjunctively guide the precision therapy. Additionally, the values for CSF ADA, protein and pressure could assist in predicting mNGS positive result. With technical improvements for mNGS sample processing to increase throughput and reduce costs, clinicians may use mNGS more widely in municipal hospital laboratories.
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.