ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Diagnostic Performance of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Metagenomic Next‑generation Sequencing versus Conventional Microbiological Tests in Immunocompromised and Immunocompetent Patients with Pulmonary Infection.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Pulmonary infection in immunocompromised patients is challenging to diagnose. This study evaluated the detection performance of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in these patients. Patients and Methods: A total of 86 patients with confirmed pulmonary infection (48 immunocompromised, 38 immunocompetent) were retrospectively enrolled. BALF samples were tested by both mNGS and conventional microbiological tests (CMTs). Pathogen detection rates and pathogen spectrum were compared between the two groups. Results: The positive rate of mNGS was significantly higher than that of CMTs in overall patients (87.21% vs 50.00%, Conclusion: BALF‑mNGS is a reliable supplementary tool for conventional detection. It effectively identifies missed opportunistic pathogens and complex mixed infections, especially in immunocompromised patients. Combined application of mNGS and conventional tests improves pathogen detection and may help inform anti-infective treatment decisions.
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.