ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Detection Blind Spots in Microbial Culture, tNGS, and mNGS: Anaerobic Bacterial Infections in the Lung-A Retrospective Analysis of Two Cases.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aspiration pneumonia is often associated with specific obligate anaerobic bacteria, particularly oral commensals, as causative agents; however, these infections are frequently misdiagnosed in clinical settings. This retrospective analysis of two patients presenting with fever and cough demonstrates that, in the setting of inconclusive routine microbiological testing and tNGS results, along with ineffective empirical antimicrobial therapy, comprehensive mNGS analysis of BALF microbiota-combined with the presence of high-risk oral factors (such as dental caries and severe periodontitis)-facilitated the diagnosis of anaerobic pneumonia. In both cases, tNGS was unable to detect anaerobic pathogens due to the limited scope of anaerobic bacterial targets in commercial panels. In contrast, comprehensive mNGS, when correctly interpreted in conjunction with clinical context, can detect anaerobic sequences. The key difference lies in that mNGS offers a broader detection capability, but it requires careful correlation with clinical circumstances to distinguish between true pathogens and colonizing bacteria. Specifically, Case 1 revealed the presence of Bacteroides timidum and
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.