ArticlePloS one2026
Comparison of unbiased metagenomic next generation sequencing to targeted multiplex diagnostic assays for the detection of respiratory viruses.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAccurate diagnosis of existing and emerging respiratory pathogens is important. We evaluated the capability of unbiased metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) to identify pathogenic RNA viruses from two cohorts of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs previously tested by commercial multiplex respiratory diagnostics.
methodsNP swabs (N = 100) in viral transport media (VTM) were assessed using mNGS for this study. Cohort 1 (N = 52) consisted of symptomatic individuals who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and RSV by the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV Plus multiplex respiratory virus panel and were tested by mNGS for undetected pathogens. Cohort 2 (N = 48) included symptomatic individuals who were positive (N = 26) or negative (N = 22) by the ePlex RP2 multiplex respiratory pathogen panel. Samples were positive for influenza A (N = 8), rhinovirus/enterovirus (N = 5), RSV (N = 4), adenovirus (N = 3), parainfluenza (N = 2), seasonal coronaviruses (N = 2), and human metapneumovirus (N = 1), as well as a rhinovirus/enterovirus/human metapneumovirus co-infected sample (N = 1). mNGS results were compared with ePlex RP2 findings, and symptomatic negative samples were evaluated for additional pathogen detection.
resultsCohort 1 contained 8% (4/52) viral and 19% (10/52) bacterial reads. In cohort 2, positive concordance between ePlex RP2 and mNGS was 31% (8/26). mNGS did not identify any viral reads in ePlex RP2-negative samples. However, it detected other microbial reads, such as Acanthamoeba castellanii, in 21% (10/48) of samples.
conclusionIn this study, targeted multiplex amplification methods demonstrated better overall sensitivity in NPs of symptomatic respiratory individuals than mNGS. Other mNGS approaches may produce different results. This study suggests that mNGS may offer adjunctive information, including the detection of rare pathogens, which may be helpful in some clinical contexts.
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.