ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Impact of metagenomic sequencing on clinical outcomes in patients with suspected central nervous system infections: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Although the value of metagenomic sequencing (mNGS) in diagnosing pathogens in central nervous system infections (CNSi) has been confirmed, its impact on the clinical outcomes of patients remains to be elucidated. This study intended to investigate the clinical impact of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) mNGS on the outcomes of patients with suspected CNSi. Methods: Between January 2022 and July 2024, patients who met both the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and assigned to either the mNGS group (CSF tested by both mNGS and conventional microbiological tests [CMTs]) or the CMT group (CMTs alone). Following this, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline differences. The primary endpoint, time to clinical improvement, was then compared between the two groups and analyzed in stratified subgroups. Secondary endpoints included the rates of clinical improvement at 14 and 30 days, hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and the proportion of GCS score <15. Results: A retrospective analysis of 338 patients was conducted, with 169 cases in each group. In the mNGS group, a comparison of diagnostic performance between the two testing methods demonstrated that mNGS yielded a significantly higher positivity rate in patients with CNSi compared to CMTs (67.5% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001), identifying 111 pathogens in total, which was substantially more than the 24 detected by CMTs. Subsequent comparison of clinical outcomes between the groups showed that the duration until clinical improvement was significantly reduced in the mNGS group when compared to the CMT group (median: 14 days vs. 17 days; p=0.032). Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the mNGS group experienced clinical improvement within 14 days compared to those in the CMT group(42.6% vs. 31.4%; p=0.032). Subgroup analysis further revealed that the mNGS group's superiority in clinical improvement over the CMT group was only evident in patients with CNSi, especially when complicated by pneumonia. Conclusion: The combination of mNGS with CMT significantly improves the clinical outcome of CNSi patients, offering greater clinical utility than traditional methods alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.