ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Targeted next-generation sequencing for microbial and clinical diagnosis: a prospective controlled comparison between sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate identification of pathogens causing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults is a crucial step for successful diagnosis and treatment. However, some patients cannot tolerate bronchoscopy, or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) cannot be obtained in a timely manner. Currently, targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) is increasingly used for detecting pathogens. As an easily accessible lower respiratory tract specimen, the diagnostic efficacy of sputum tNGS in detecting pathogens causing CAP remains unclear. METHODS AND
designBetween August 2023 and May 2025, 181 patients clinically diagnosed with CAP were enrolled from the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, the People's Hospital of Nanbu County, Sichuan Province. Sputum and BALF samples were collected from each patient on the same day. The samples underwent tNGS to compare the diagnostic performance of sputum tNGS and BALF tNGS in laboratory microbial detection and pathogen identification.
resultsIn total, 181 adult patients were included in this study, comprising 98 males (54.1%) and 83 females (45.9%). Finally 175 patients were diagnosed with CAP, and 6 patients had non-infectious diseases. Concerning laboratory microbial detection, the overall microbial detection rates of sputum tNGS and BALF tNGS were 96.1% (174/181) and 95.5% (173/181), respectively. Using the results of BALF tNGS microbial detection as the reference, sputum tNGS showed high overall consistency for bacterial detection (Kappa value: 0.71). Consistency was lower for fungal and viral detection (Kappa values: 0.47, 0.44). Furthermore, using the comprehensive clinical judgment criteria for pathogenic microorganisms as the gold standard, the diagnostic accuracy of sputum tNGS and BALF tNGS for pathogens leading to CAP was evaluated. The overall concordance rates of sputum compared to BALF tNGS for diagnosing pathogenic bacteria, fungi, viruses, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and atypical pathogens were 0.70 vs. 0.72, 0.93 vs. 0.93, 0.81 vs. 0.85, 0.97 vs. 0.98, and 0.99 vs. 0.98, respectively. Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that the cost of sputum tNGS was significantly lower than that of BALF tNGS and the conventional method of pathogen detection (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe diagnostic accuracy of sputum tNGS for microorganisms causing CAP is comparable to that of BALF tNGS. It is easy to implement and has lower costs, suggesting its value as an alternative to BALF tNGS or conventional microbiological tests for the early and rapid diagnosis of CAP.
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.