Evidence Hub

Rapid and Accurate Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections Using Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing: A Multicenter Comparative Study with Metagenomic Sequencing and Traditional Culture Methods

Zheng-Lin Chang, Jiwang Deng, Jinhu Zhang, Haojie Wu, Yuanyuan Wu, Lai Bin, Dan Li, Jingxin Liu et al.

Journal of Infection, 2025

400 participants · 34 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) rank among the most prevalent bacterial infections globally. Traditional urine culture methods have significant limitations in detection time and sensitivity, prompting the need to evaluate targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) as a potential diagnostic tool.

METHODS

The study included a discovery cohort of 400 suspected UTI patients (202 analyzed) and a validation cohort of 200 patients (110 analyzed). The study assessed detection time, concordance rates, ability to identify polymicrobial infections, and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Both clear and turbid urine samples were evaluated across different clinical settings.

RESULTS

In the discovery cohort, tNGS demonstrated 96.5% concordance with culture-positive samples, while showing superior specificity in culture-negative specimens (53.1% vs 28.1% for mNGS). Detection time for tNGS (12.89h) was notably shorter than mNGS (17.38h) and traditional culture (61.48h). tNGS exhibited remarkable capability in identifying polymicrobial infections (55.4% of samples), significantly outperforming both mNGS (27.7%) and traditional culture methods, which failed to detect any co-infections. The method showed particular strength in detecting fastidious organisms like Ureaplasma parvum and fungal species such as Candida tropicalis. For antibiotic resistance prediction, tNGS detected more ARGs (52.67% vs 41.22% for mNGS) and achieved 100% sensitivity for vancomycin and methicillin…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 400 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free