ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Diagnostic utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for tissue in patients with suspected infectious diseases.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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.
- Performance evaluation of mNGS in pathogen diagnosis of skin and soft tissue infections and its optimization effect on antibiotic decision-making.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) was suggested to potentially replace traditional microbiological methods because of its comprehensiveness. However, the diagnostic utility of mNGS for tissue hasn't been fully explored, especially for patient with HIV infection. HIV-positive and negative patients with suspected infectious diseases who performed tissue mNGS and conventional microbiological tests (CMTs) were retrospectively enrolled between October, 2020 and May 2024. The microbial spectrum of tissue mNGS and CMTs was analyzed, and the diagnostic accuracy and consistency of mNGS and CMTs for tissue were compared. The related factors of positive rate of mNGS was analyzed. Of 70 patients with suspected infectious diseases, 44 cases were confirmed with the infectious diseases. Among 44 patients with infectious diseases, aerobic bacteria (36.4%) was the most common detected pathogen, followed by mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB, 18.2%), non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM, 13.6%) and fungus (11.4%). The sensitivity of tissue mNGS (72.7%, 95%CI 56.9%-84.5%) was significantly higher than that that in tissue CMTs (29.5%, 95%CI 17.2%-45.4%) (p<0.001), but the specificity was not statistically significant(P = 0.656). mNGS demonstrated higher detection rates than CMTs in the case with single microbial infections (70.0% vs. 30.0%; p<0.01). For the case with multiple microbial infections, the detection rates of mNGS and CMTs was 100.0% and 25.5% (p=1.000), respectively. Both positive mNGS and CMTs were observed in 22.7% patients with infectious diseases, and sole positive mNGS and sole positive CMTs were observed in 50.0% and 6.8% patients, respectively. There were no statistically differences in age, gender, HIV infection, PCT levels, neutrophil counts, CD4
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.