ReviewJOR spine2025
Meta-Analysis of the Application Value of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing Technology in the Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases of the Spine.
Review in JOR spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in infectious diseases of the spine (IDS). Methods: Systematic literature on the application of mNGS in the diagnosis of IDS was retrieved by two independent researchers from databases including Pubmed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP from the inception to 30 November 2024. Meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-Disc 1.4 and Stata 18.0 software. Results: The initial search identified 314 articles. After applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 studies were included, encompassing 1236 patients, of which 835 had confirmed IDS. Meta-analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of mNGS for IDS diagnosis were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98) and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.48-0.71), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 2.3 (95% CI: 1.7-3.2), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04-0.22). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 26 (95% CI: 9-75), with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88). Conclusion: The primary diagnostic value of mNGS lies in its ability to serve as a rapid screening tool for disease exclusion. However, for diagnosing IDS, it is essential to integrate other clinical indicators for a comprehensive assessment to confirm the diagnosis.
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.