ArticlePloS one2026
A comparison between bacterial cultivation and 16S rRNA next generation sequencing approaches for analysis of bacteria in urine and cerebrospinal fluid samples.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate identification of bacterial pathogens is essential for effective clinical management; however, bacterial diagnosis remains challenging in routine microbiology laboratories, particularly in emergency settings and outbreak situations. Bacterial meningitis is a life-threatening condition associated with high morbidity and mortality, underscoring the need for sensitive and specific diagnostic approaches. Conventional culture-based methods often fail to identify causative agents, especially in samples with low bacterial load or fastidious organisms. This study aimed to evaluate next-generation sequencing (NGS) as a diagnostic tool compared with classical cultivation methods for bacterial detection in urine and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. A total of 50 urine samples (30 positive, 15 insignificant, and 5 negative by culture) and 14 CSF samples (4 positive and 10 negative) were collected from the microbiology laboratory at Al-Makassed Hospital in Jerusalem, Palestine. Bacterial identification was performed using both conventional methods and NGS targeting the 16S rRNA gene. Classical culture methods identified common uropathogens, including Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Enterococcus spp., Lactobacillus spp., Group B Streptococcus, Acinetobacter spp., and Proteus mirabilis in urine samples, while CSF cultures detected coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, Enterobacter spp., and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In comparison, NGS provided broader bacterial profiling at genus and species levels. In urine samples with significant growth, NGS identified Escherichia coli as the most prevalent species and Enterococcus as the most abundant genus. Importantly, NGS detected multiple bacterial taxa in samples classified as culture-negative or insignificant-growth, including Escherichia, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus, and Klebsiella. In CSF samples, NGS additionally identified Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Escherichia, Staphylococcus, and Rickettsia in culture-negative specimens. Overall, NGS demonstrated substantially higher sensitivity than classical culture methods and provided more comprehensive bacterial identification, highlighting its diagnostic value for detecting slow-growing, fastidious, and low-abundance bacteria missed by conventional techniques.
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.