ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2026
The diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing versus traditional microbiological testing in native pyogenic spinal infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2026. 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 of metagenomic next-generation sequencing as an adjunct to conventional microbiological testing for the diagnosis of infection in kidney transplant recipients.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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Native pyogenic spinal infections (PSIs), including spondylodiscitis and vertebral osteomyelitis, are challenging to diagnose due to low culture sensitivity and delayed results. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool, but its comparative clinical utility remains uncertain. The purpose of this study is to systematically compare the diagnostic performance and clinical impact of mNGS versus conventional microbial culture in detecting pathogens responsible for native PSIs. Methods: The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed across 6 major databases. Eligible studies directly compared mNGS with standard culture for native PSIs and reported diagnostic performance metrics. Data were extracted and analyzed using a random-effects model to produce pooled estimates. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes included pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Secondary outcomes assessed diagnostic yield, time to diagnosis, treatment modification, and false-positive or contamination events. Results: A total of 1,227 patients from 12 studies were included, encompassing those with suspected or confirmed native PSIs. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of mNGS were 89.7% (95% CI: 85.6-93.1%) and 86.2% (95% CI: 80.5-91.0%), respectively. mNGS demonstrated a significantly higher diagnostic yield (69-90%) compared to culture (27.2-44.7%) and enabled faster diagnosis (range, 17.7-48 hours). mNGS informed antimicrobial selection in up to 70.3% of cases and detected a broader pathogen spectrum. The incidence of false positives was low (range, 1-5) but non-negligible, emphasizing the need for careful interpretation. Conclusions: mNGS outperforms conventional culture in sensitivity, speed, and breadth of pathogen detection in native PSIs and supports more tailored antimicrobial therapy. However, careful interpretation is necessary due to potential false positives. These findings support the integration of mNGS into clinical workflows, particularly in complex or culture-negative infections.
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.