ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Respiratory and blood samples metagenomic sequencing in diagnosing pulmonary infections in hematologic patients.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBacterial and fungal pulmonary infections (BFPI) are common in hematological patients and pose significant diagnostic challenges. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is valuable for diagnosing BFPI. However, for hematological patients with limited access to lower respiratory tract samples (LRTS), the clinical value of blood-mNGS compared to LRTS-mNGS requires further investigation.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 160 cases with suspected pneumonia who underwent both blood-mNGS and LRTS-mNGS within one week. Diagnostic performance and impacts on antimicrobial adjustments were evaluated using clinical composite diagnosis (CCD) as the reference.
resultsCompared to CCD, LRTS-mNGS showed significantly higher positive percent agreement (PPA) than blood-mNGS [93.7% (119/127) vs. 34.6% (44/127), P < 0.001], with negative percent agreements (NPA) of 87.5% (21/24) and 91.7% (22/24), respectively. Blood-mNGS showed higher PPA in neutropenic than non-neutropenic patients [56.8% (21/37) vs. 25.6% (23/90), P = 0.001], with unique fungal detection advantages, identifying additional fungi in 7 cases: Mucorales (3), Aspergillus spp. (2), both Mucorales and Aspergillus spp. (1), and Pneumocystis spp. (1). Resistance genes were detected only by LRTS-mNGS. mNGS positively influenced antimicrobial adjustments in 54.3% (69/127) of cases, particularly for pathogens with low empirical coverage, such as Legionella spp. (0.0%, 0/7), Pneumocystis spp. (52.4%, 11/21), and Mucorales (55.6%, 5/9). Blood-mNGS detected these pathogens at rates of 71.4% (5/7), 23.8% (5/21), and 77.8% (7/9), respectively.
conclusionLRTS-mNGS outperformed blood-mNGS in diagnostic performance and resistance detection. Blood-mNGS identified pathogens in one-third of BFPI cases, with value for certain fungal infections, especially in hematologic patients with limited LRTS access.
trial registrationNot applicable. This study is a retrospective analysis and does not require clinical trial registration.
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.