ArticleNeurospine2026
Diagnostic Value of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Suspected Native Spinal Brucella Infection: A Multicenter Study.
Article in Neurospine, 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The aim is to study the diagnostic positive rates of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), microbial culture, and serologic testing in suspected native spinal brucellosis, and to evaluate the clinical value of their combined application. Methods: In this multicenter, retrospective observational study, 128 patients with suspected native spinal brucellosis from 6 medical centers (February 2020 to February 2025) were enrolled. Specimens from infection sites were subjected to microbial culture, mNGS, and serological testing (agglutination test). Results: Of the 128 patients with suspected native spinal Brucella infections, 118 patients were diagnosed with Brucella spondylitis. Among the 118 confirmed Brucella spondylitis cases, mNGS demonstrated a positivity rate of 92.37% (109 of 118), significantly higher than that of culture (26.27%, 31 of 118) and agglutination test (83.05%, 98 of 118). In the 87 culture-negative samples, mNGS detected Brucella in 91.95% (80 of 87), compared to 82.76% (72 of 87) by agglutination test. mNGS confirmed Brucella infection in all 16 cases that were agglutination test negative. mNGS combined with agglutination tests can effectively complement each other, improving the sensitivity of diagnosis and thereby minimizing missed diagnoses to the greatest extent. Among the 10 nonbrucellar spinal pathologies, agglutination test showed a high false-positive rate of 90% (9 of 10), whereas mNGS had a 10% (1 of 10) false-positive rate. Therefore, the agglutination test has a relatively high rate of false positives. Conclusion: mNGS detection represents an effective adjunct to microbial culture and the agglutination test. The concurrent use of all 3 methods enhances diagnostic accuracy and reduces the likelihood of missed and incorrect diagnoses, significantly improving patient prognosis and guiding personalized clinical treatment.
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.