ArticleMolecular and cellular pediatrics2026
Next-generation sequencing of cell-free microbial DNA in blood samples of critically ill children: a single-center experience.
Article in Molecular and cellular pediatrics, 2026. 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.
- Clinical utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in infants with severe infections.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Complementary Utility of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing and Blood Culture for Bloodstream Infections: Insights into Pathogen-Specific Inflammatory and Coagulation Profiles.Infection and drug resistance · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid and accurate pathogen detection is critical for optimizing outcomes in pediatric sepsis. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from blood enables culture-independent identification of microbial DNA from bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. We evaluated the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of cfDNA-based NGS in critically ill and predominantly immunocompromised pediatric patients (≤ 18 years) with suspected infection. This retrospective single-center study included pediatric patients who underwent plasma cfDNA-NGS at a tertiary care hospital in Germany. Following computational removal of human DNA, remaining sequences were aligned to curated microbial reference databases. Diagnostic performance was compared with blood cultures and viral PCR, and clinical relevance was assessed by pediatric infectious disease specialists.
results111 tests in 78 pediatric patients, mostly with systemic inflammatory response syndrome of unknown etiology, were performed. Overall, 61 tests (54.5%) were positive for pathogenic cfDNA. Compared with conventional microbiological diagnostics, NGS demonstrated a sensitivity of 64.7% and specificity of 88.2% when blood cultures and viral PCR served as the reference standard. NGS identified additional pathogens in a substantial proportion (41.1%) of cases that remained negative by standard testing. Of those pathogens only found by NGS, over 60% were deemed clinically relevant. In 14.8% of positive NGS results, a pathogen-specific therapy was started, while 40.2% of tests led to a discontinuation of therapy (51.0% of negative tests). Out of all positive NGS, 38 (62.3%) were classified as clinically relevant. NGS testing also detected rare infections with fungi and parasites in four cases each.
conclusionDetection of pathogenic cfDNA through NGS from blood shows promising results as an additional diagnostic tool in critically ill pediatric patients with suspected infections. Clinical utility is currently still limited by its high cost, undetermined diagnostic validity and limitations in testing for resistances and restricted availability of raw sequencing data due to data-protection constraints.
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.