ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Establishing hospital-specific background microbial libraries to reduce false positives in mNGS diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: Sequential mNGS captures fatal HSV-1 reactivation after intestinal obstruction-associated ARDS in a 91-year-old.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A framework of Microbial Genomic Database for clinical metagenomic pathogen diagnosis: development and multi-cohort evaluation.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to the high sensitivity of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), trace amounts of nucleic acid contamination can lead to false positives, posing challenges for result interpretation. This study is the first to experimentally identify and establish background microbial libraries (BML) related to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) across different medical institutions, aiming to demonstrate the necessity of institution-specific BMLs to improve mNGS diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Samples were taken from 3 different acetabular reamer for hip arthroplasty in 7 different hospitals. The whole process was strictly aseptic, mNGS was performed according to standard operating procedures. The sterility of instruments was confirmed by culture method. The sequencing results of specimens from different hospitals were compared to analyze the difference of background bacteria. Bioinformatics analysis and visualization were presented through R language. Results: A total of 26 samples (24 instrument swabs and 2 negative controls) generated 254 million reads, of which 1.13% matched microbial genomes. The proportion of microbial reads (1.13%) falls within ranges typically observed for contamination in low-biomass metagenomic sequencing studies. Among these, bacteria accounted for 87.48%, fungi 11.18%, parasites 1.26%, and viruses 0.06%. The most abundant bacterial genera included Cutibacterium, Staphylococcus, and Acinetobacter. Principal component analysis revealed distinct bacterial compositions among the seven hospitals, and clustering analysis showed significant inter-hospital variation ( Conclusions: The composition and abundance of residual bacterial DNA vary markedly among institutions, underscoring the necessity of establishing hospital-specific BMLs. Incorporating such libraries into clinical mNGS interpretation can effectively reduce false positives and enhance the diagnostic accuracy of PJI. arthroplasty, bacterial culture, next-generation sequencing, joint replacement, periprosthetic joint infection, background microbial libraries.
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.