ArticleClinical rheumatology2025
Clinical value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in patients with connective tissue diseases co-infections: a single-center study from southern hospital in China.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the clinical value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) co-infections, thereby establishing a foundation for early infection identification and the development of anti-infective regimens.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 304 CTD patients with suspected infections at the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University between October 2020 and April 2024. The study compared the diagnostic efficacy between mNGS and conventional microbiological testing (CMT), examined pathogen detection rates across different periods and pathogen types, and evaluated the clinical outcomes of mNGS-guided antimicrobial regimen adjustments.
resultsAmong the 180 confirmed infections (Group I), mNGS demonstrated superior diagnostic performance compared to conventional microbiological testing (CMT). mNGS exhibited significantly higher sensitivity (89.6% vs. 57.0%; OR = 6.5, 95% CI: 3.7-11.0, p < 0.001), with a specificity of 81.5%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 52.4%. mNGS outperformed CMT in detecting bacterial and viral pathogens (p < 0.05). Viral infections were the most common. Compared to prior studies, mNGS exhibited improved pathogen detection rates. mNGS-guided treatment optimization significantly enhanced clinical outcomes, with higher cure rates, lower mortality, and shorter hospital stays.
conclusionCurrent evidence suggests that while mNGS demonstrates superior diagnostic performance over CMT for detecting infections in CTD patients, their combined use provides optimal pathogen identification accuracy and enhanced clinical management. Key Points • This is the larger-scale retrospective study of mNGS application in patients with CTDs co-infections following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). • We found that the distribution of pathogens and positivity rates have changed in recent years, especially after the COVID-19. • The clinical value of mNGS was further demonstrated through its impact of mNGS results on antibiotic regimens and the analysis of negative samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40540222What 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.