SynthesisScientific reports2025
Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) versus tissue culture technique (TCT) in diagnosis of spinal infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional microbial culture in spinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Differentiating Tuberculous and Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis: Part I-Epidemiology, Clinical Features, Laboratory Markers, and Tissue-Based Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in diagnosing spinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- From Culture to Sequencing: Evolving Strategies for the Diagnosis of Pediatric Spondylodiscitis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Review
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the diagnosis of suspected spinal infections from biopsy samples: a novel biopsy toolkit design and real-life diagnostic value.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Integrating molecular and conventional diagnostics in native vertebral osteomyelitis: a narrative review.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2026Review
- Integrating metagenomic next-generation sequencing into a multimodal diagnostic framework for spinal infection: enhancing etiological identification and clinical prediction.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Review
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
Spinal infections pose a significant clinical challenge due to the difficulty of early diagnosis. Traditional Tissue Culture Technique (TCT) has limitations, while Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool. However, reports on the diagnostic performance of mNGS and TCT for spinal infections are inconsistent, and there has been a lack of systematic analysis of the evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis included 10 studies involving a total of 770 patients to compare the diagnostic accuracy of mNGS and TCT. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SinoMed to identify studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of mNGS and TCT for spinal infections. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 16.0 to compute the sensitivity, specificity, and Area Under the Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC). The meta-analysis revealed pooled estimates for mNGS with a sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74-0.87), specificity of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.48-0.91), and an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88). In contrast, pooled estimates for TCT showed a sensitivity of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.27-0.43), specificity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.79-0.98), and an AUC of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.55-0.63). While mNGS demonstrates higher sensitivity and overall diagnostic accuracy than TCT, its lower specificity suggests that it may be most effective when used alongside conventional methods to enhance diagnostic reliability in spinal infections.
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.