ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing as an adjunct to conventional microbiological testing for the diagnosis of infection in kidney transplant recipients.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Kidney transplant recipients are highly susceptible to opportunistic and nosocomial infections that demand rapid and accurate diagnosis due to the broad and complex spectrum of pathogens. Conventional microbiological testing (CMT) is often limited, particularly when patients are already receiving antimicrobial therapy at the time of sampling. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) as a complementary diagnostic approach to CMT, with a focus on concordance and discrepancies between the two methods across peripheral blood, sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and urine samples. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of kidney transplant recipients with suspected infections who underwent simultaneous mNGS and CMT testing between March 2022 and May 2024. The impact of prior antibiotic exposure on diagnostic yield was assessed. Detection of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes by mNGS and subsequent modifications in anti-infective management were also analyzed. Results: A total of 243 samples (57 blood, 96 sputum, 71 BALF, 19 urine) were included. Across all sample types, mNGS demonstrated significantly higher positive rates than CMT (blood: 78.95% vs 21.05%; BALF: 90.14% vs 19.72%; sputum: 92.71% vs 20.83%; urine: 89.47% vs 36.84%; all P<0.001). Prior antibiotic exposure markedly reduced CMT positivity but had minimal impact on mNGS detection. Concordance analysis showed 40.35% of samples were positive by both methods, while 60.1% were negative by CMT but positive by mNGS. In addition to pathogens identified by CMT, mNGS detected a broader range of microorganisms, including viruses (e.g., cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, SARS-CoV-2), fungi (Pneumocystis jirovecii), and parasites (Strongyloides stercoralis, Toxoplasma gondii). Overall, mNGS-guided results refined antibiotic treatment strategies in 110 cases (60.11%). Conclusion: mNGS serves as a valuable adjunct to CMT in kidney transplant recipients, providing rapid and comprehensive pathogen identification. However, from a health economics perspective, mNGS should be applied selectively according to clinical needs, rather than as a universal first-line diagnostic method.
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.