ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Evaluation of Sequencing Technologies for Detecting Antimicrobial Resistance in Bloodstream Infections.
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oxford Nanopore Sequencing, a Promising Technology for Precision Diagnostics in Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Near-real-time whole-genome sequencing in hospital infection control: a narrative review.Infection · 2026Review
- Metagenomics next-generation sequencing of plasma combined with blood cells for improving the prognosis of early infection in patients with hematologic disorders: a real-world cohort study in northern China.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Targeted next-generation sequencing in sepsis-associated lymphopenia: a concordance analysis with conventional microbiological testing.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bloodstream infections (BSIs) pose a significant global health challenge, particularly due to the increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Timely and accurate identification of pathogens and resistance determinants is critical for guiding appropriate therapy and improving patient outcomes. Traditional culture-based diagnostics are limited by prolonged turnaround times and reduced sensitivity, especially in culture-negative or polymicrobial infections. This review systematically examined current and emerging sequencing technologies for AMR detection in BSIs, including whole-genome sequencing (WGS), targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS), metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), and long-read sequencing platforms (Oxford Nanopore, PacBio). We compared their clinical performance using key metrics such as diagnostic sensitivity, turnaround time, and cost, highlighting contexts in which each technology is most effective. For example, tNGS can achieve the rapid detection of known resistance genes within 8-24 h, while WGS provides comprehensive genome-wide resistance profiling over 24-48 h. mNGS offers broader detection, including rare or unexpected pathogens, although at higher cost and longer processing times. Our analysis identifies specific strengths and limitations of each approach, supporting the use of context-specific strategies, such as combining rapid targeted sequencing for common pathogens with broader metagenomic approaches for complex cases, to improve diagnostic yield and guide antimicrobial therapy. Quantitative comparisons indicate that sequencing technologies can complement conventional methods, particularly in cases where culture-based approaches fail. In conclusion, sequencing-based diagnostics offer measurable improvements in sensitivity and speed over traditional methods for AMR detection in BSIs. Future work should focus on optimizing workflows, integrating sequencing data into clinical decision-making, and validating approaches in prospective studies.
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.