ArticleScientific reports2025
Diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the etiological diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has been widely used in infectious diseases. However, reports on mNGS for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) diagnosis remain limited, potentially offering significant value for improving pathogen identification. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance and clinical value of mNGS compared to traditional methods in LRTI. We analyzed traditional and mNGS detection results from 165 patients with suspected LRTI using different specimens including bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), blood, tissue samples, and pleural effusion. We compared diagnostic differences and characteristics between mNGS and traditional methods, and evaluated the effect of mNGS results on antibiotic treatment.Among 165 cases, 146 (88.48%) patients with LRTI had microbial etiology finally identified. Compared with traditional diagnostic methods, mNGS showed significantly higher positive rate (143/165, 86.7% vs 69/165, 41.8%, P < 0.05). The diagnostic performance of mNGS was not affected by sample types. mNGS demonstrated significant advantage in detecting poly-microbial infections and rare pathogens. Twenty-nine kinds of pathogens were detected only by mNGS, including non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Prevotella, anaerobic bacteria, Legionella gresilensis, Orientia tsugamushi, and viruses. The pathogen spectrum differed between immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals. mNGS resulted in treatment changes in 119 patients (72.13%), with 54 patients (32.73%) having reduced antibiotics. mNGS has obvious advantages over traditional detection methods with results unaffected by sample types. mNGS demonstrates significant value for pathogen detection and may provide guidance in clinical practice.
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.