Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37674635›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2023

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Diagnosing

Aysun Tekin, Hong Hieu Truong, Lucrezia Rovati, Amos Lal, Danielle J Gerberi, Ognjen Gajic, John C O'Horo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Clinical application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in children with suspected bloodstream infection.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Current fungal infection reports · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Aysun TekinDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1891-2118
Hong Hieu TruongDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Lucrezia RovatiDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Amos LalDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Danielle J GerberiMayo Clinic Library Services, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Ognjen GajicDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
John C O'HoroDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0880-4498
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Methods: Five databases were searched through December 19, 2022, to identify original studies comparing MNGS with clinically diagnosed PCP. To assess the accuracy, symmetric hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were used. Results: Eleven observational studies reporting 1442 patients (424 with PCP) were included. Six studies focused exclusively on recipients of biologic immunosuppression (none with HIV-associated immunosuppression). Six were exclusively on bronchoalveolar lavage, while 1 was on blood samples. The sensitivity of MGNS was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90-0.99), and specificity was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98), with negative and positive likelihood ratios of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) and 19.31 (95% CI, 10.26-36.36), respectively. A subgroup analysis of studies exclusively including bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and blood samples demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88-0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.76-1.00), respectively. The sensitivity analysis on recipients of biologic immunosuppression showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90-0.98) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-0.98), respectively. The overall confidence in the estimates was low. Conclusions: Despite the low certainty of evidence, MNGS detects PCP with high sensitivity and specificity. This also applies to recipients of biologic immunosuppression and tests performed exclusively on blood samples without the need for BAL. Further studies are required in individuals with HIV-associated immunosuppression.

Indexed as

diagnostic accuracymeta-analysismetagenomic next-generation sequencingPCPPneumocystissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37674635
PMCPMC10478158
OpenAlexW4385971807

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.