Evidence Hub

Metagenomics in the diagnosis of pneumonia: a systematic review

S. Quarton, Alana Livesey, C. Jeff, C. Hatton, C. Chen, A. Scott, D. Parekh, D. Thickett et al.

Infectious Diseases, 2025

10,566 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Pneumonia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, yet causative organisms are rarely identified. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) may improve this, however the impact on outcomes is uncertain and the relative utility in pneumonia subtypes or different clinical samples is unclear. Methods This systematic review compared mNGS with conventional microbiology, assessing pathogen identification, turnaround time and clinical impact. It also reviewed difference related to the pneumonia subtype, or sample used. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for studies comparing mNGS with conventional microbiology, in patients with pneumonia. All study types were included (excluding case reports of <10 people). Eligibility assessment and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers, and risk of bias assessed using the QUADAS-2. Results We identified 74 studies including 10,566 people, with all studies having high risk of bias or applicability concerns in at least one domain. Conventional tests identified a pathogen in 43.2% of cases (3559/8229) compared to 78.9% for mNGS (6242/7980). mNGS had faster turnaround times than conventional microbiology (MD −73.6h, CI-111.36 – −35.73 hrs) but meta-analysis was not possible for other outcomes. Most studies did not specify the pneumonia subtype. 92%of studies used exclusively or predominantly bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 10,566 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