ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Clinical evaluation of probe capture-based targeted next-generation sequencing in suspected infected pancreatic necrosis: a prospective pilot diagnostic study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of probe capture-based targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) in suspected infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN).
methodsA prospective study was conducted among patients with suspected IPN at Xiangya Hospital from December 2023 to May 2025. Blood samples were collected and sent for tNGS, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), and culture. For patients with indications for surgical interventions, peripancreatic specimens were simultaneously collected for microbial culture during the initial surgical procedure to confirm the presence of IPN. The clinical performance of tNGS, mNGS and culture were compared.
resultsIn 51 patients, blood tNGS demonstrated a significantly higher positivity rate compared to blood culture (54.9% vs. 17.7%, P < 0.05), while no statistically significant difference was observed between blood tNGS and blood mNGS (54.9% vs. 51.0%, P = 0.683). tNGS demonstrated superior detection of fungi and Gram-negative bacteria. With peripancreatic culture as the reference standard, tNGS demonstrated superior sensitivity (94.7%), accuracy (81.3%), and concordance rate (78.9%) compared to conventional culture, and exhibited comparable performance to mNGS. tNGS also detected antimicrobial-resistance genes in 7 patients, with findings consistent with available phenotypic susceptibilities. Detection of virulence factors (VF) was associated with higher rates of persistent organ failure (POF) (100.0% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.009) and mortality (77.7% vs. 11.9%, P = 0.022). Firth’s bias-reduced logistic regression identified OF > 7 days as an independent predictor of tNGS positivity (OR 4.259, P = 0.040).
conclusionsBlood tNGS demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to mNGS in suspected IPN, with potentially greater sensitivity for fungal and Gram-negative pathogens. Its ability to detect VF may offer prognostic insights, but clinical utility requires further validation.
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.