ArticleRespiratory research2025
Associations of targeted next-generation sequencing with antimicrobial stewardship and clinical outcomes in pediatric lower respiratory tract infections.
Article in Respiratory research, 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.
- Application value of next generation sequencing technology for pathogen detection in patients with pulmonary infection and lung cancer.American journal of cancer research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) in pediatric lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) remains largely unknown. We aimed to investigate whether adding tNGS to standard conventional microbiological tests (CMTs), compared with CMTs alone, was associated with antimicrobial stewardship and clinical outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at Tongji Hospital, Wuhan, between 2023-2024. Pediatric patients hospitalized with LRTI were categorized into tNGS (tNGS in addition to CMTs, typically as a second-line test) or control (CMTs alone) groups based on testing received during the first 4 days after admission. To address potential baseline confounding, we performed 1:2 propensity score matching to balance key clinical characteristics between groups. The primary outcomes were whether and time to provision of pathogen-directed treatment within 96 hours after the index time. Secondary outcomes included other antimicrobial stewardship measures and clinical outcomes. Between-group outcomes were assessed using generalized linear models to estimate risk differences (RDs, identity link) and odds ratios (ORs, logit link) for binary outcomes, while time-to-event analyses were performed using Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models to account for competing risk of discharge, with results reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsAfter matching, 520 participants were included (182 tNGS group; 338 control group). During follow-up, 75 patients (41.21%) in the tNGS group and 48 (14.20%) in the control group received pathogen-directed treatment, with an absolute RD of 27.01% (95% CI: 18.95%, 35.07%) and an OR of 4.23 (95% CI: 2.78, 6.51). The mean time to treatment was 58.99 hours in the tNGS group vs. 82.95 hours in the control group (mean difference, −23.96 hours; 95% CI: −31.02, −16.90), with a corresponding HR of 3.55 (95% CI: 2.47, 5.09). Patients in the tNGS group also had lower rates of non-pathogen-directed antibiotic use (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.79). Clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups.
conclusionsUse of tNGS as a second-line test was associated with faster and more targeted antimicrobial treatment in pediatric LRTIs, but its impact on clinical outcomes requires further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable
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.