ArticlePolish journal of microbiology2026
Application Value of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing Using Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid and Blood Samples in Patients with Severe Pneumonia Complicated with Bloodstream Infection.
Article in Polish journal of microbiology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was designed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) using blood and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples in patients with severe pneumonia complicated by bloodstream infections. A retrospective analysis of 30 patients with severe pneumonia-bloodstream infection admitted to our hospital from January 2018 to December 2022 was conducted, and the potential pathogens in both BALF and blood samples were simultaneously detected by conventional microbial examination (traditional group) and mNGS tests (mNGS group), comparing the differences in pathogen species and detection rates between the two methods. There was no significant difference in the positivity of pathogen detection in BALF and blood samples using mNGS (
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.