ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Comparative analysis of pathogen detection methods in spinal infections: a retrospective study of 287 cases.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and timeliness of various specimens and diagnostic methods used to identify pathogens in spinal infections, thereby informing clinical diagnostic pathways.
methodWe conducted a retrospective examination of patients diagnosed with spinal infections between January 2023 and January 2025. We compared positivity rates and time-to-detection for microbial culture, mNGS, qPCR and RBT/SAT across different types of specimens: blood, muscle/vertebral biopsy, intraoperative specimens, and postoperative drainage.
resultsAmong 287 patients, 213 had confirmed pathogens: non-specific bacteria (42.0%), Mycobacterium tuberculosis (34.7%), and Brucella spp. (21.1%). The overall positivity rate for mNGS was 83.0%; for brucellosis serology (RBT/SAT), the median time to result was 2.0 days. For M. tuberculosis, mNGS yielded a positivity rate of 81.8%. For Brucella, RBT/SAT showed a sensitivity of 91.2% and a median detection time of 3 days. For non-specific bacteria, culture, mNGS, and qPCR performed comparably. The type of specimen significantly influenced the outcomes: blood cultures were relatively rapid but exhibited lower yields (35.7%); ultrasound-guided muscle abscess aspirates demonstrated favorable yield and speed across methods.
conclusionmNGS offers high sensitivity and rapidity; however, traditional culture and qPCR remain vital. Blood and muscle abscess aspirates are useful for rapid diagnosis. Implementing a systematic diagnostic workflow can enhance both the accuracy and timeliness of managing spinal infections.
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.