Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40438301›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2025

Metagenomic Next-generation Sequencing in Patients With Infectious Meningoencephalitis: A Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

Pedro S Marra, Alexandre R Marra, Eileen Chen, Takaaki Kobayashi, Patrícia Deffune Celeghini, Maria Celidonio Gutfreund, Isabele Pardo, Gabriel O V Lopes, Mariana Kim Hsieh, Nicole A Boodhoo and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Mindful diagnostics: a central nervous system infection case study.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Pedro S MarraSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7171-2169
Alexandre R MarraFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Eileen ChenSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Takaaki KobayashiUniversity of Iowa Health Care, Department of Internal Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Patrícia Deffune CeleghiniFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Maria Celidonio GutfreundFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Isabele PardoFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Gabriel O V LopesFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Mariana Kim HsiehProgram of Hospital Epidemiology, University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Nicole A BoodhooDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Daniel FuPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Michael A Torres-EspinosaSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Yimeng LiSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Rodrigo Octávio DeliberatoDepartment of Biostatistics, Health Informatics and Data Science, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Sulwan Mujahid A AlgainDivision of Infectious Diseases & Geographic Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jorge L SalinasDivision of Infectious Diseases & Geographic Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Michael B EdmondDepartment of Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
Deyvid Emanuel AmgartenFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Fernanda de Mello MaltaFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Nathalia Villa Dos SantosFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
João Renato Rebello PinhoFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Martineau LouineDepartment of Neurology, Weill Institute of Neurosciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Michael R WilsonDepartment of Neurology, Weill Institute of Neurosciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We aimed to assess the accuracy, clinical efficacy, and limitations of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) for diagnosing infectious meningoencephalitis. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated the performance of mNGS to determine the cause of infectious meningoencephalitis. We explored PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science up to 12 November 2024. To perform a meta-analysis, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for mNGS and for conventional microbiological tests (CMTs) compared to the clinical diagnosis. Results: Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, with mNGS-positive rates ranging from 43.5% to 93.5% for infectious meningoencephalitis. The meta-analysis included 23 studies with 1660 patients. The pooled sensitivity was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], .67-.72), and its specificity was 0.93 (95% CI, .92-.94). The DOR for mNGS was 26.7 (95% CI, 10.4-68.8), compared to 12.2 (95% CI, 3.2-47.0) for CMTs. For tuberculosis meningoencephalitis, mNGS demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI, .61-.72) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI, .95-.99), with a DOR of 43.5 (95% CI, 7.4-256.6). Conclusions: Our review indicates that mNGS can be a valuable diagnostic tool for infectious meningoencephalitis, offering high sensitivity and specificity. mNGS's superior DOR compared to that of CMTs highlights its potential for more accurate diagnoses and targeted interventions. Further research is needed to optimize which patients and at what point in the diagnostic process mNGS should be used.

Indexed as

diagnostic methodsinfectious meningoencephalitismetagenomic next-generation sequencingMycobacterium tuberculosissystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID40438301
PMCPMC12117655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.