Evidence Hub

Comparing the performance of targeted next-generation sequencing and metagenomic next-generation sequencing in diagnosing pneumonia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Yang Cao, Ya Xu, Chengrui Yan, Zhang-Wei Lu, Qian-Qian Zhou, Jing Wang, Yi-Yuan Wang, Lin Cheng et al.

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In terms of diagnosing pneumonia, there is currently limited evidence for a direct comparison of the performance of targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) and metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), and is no comprehensive conclusion yet. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to comprehensively compare the diagnostic performance of tNGS and mNGS in patients with pneumonia.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. From the establishment of the database to September 10, 2025. Studies providing diagnostic data (true positive, false positive, false negative, true negative) for tNGS and/or mNGS in patients suspected of pneumonia were included. We conducted a frequency theory random effects network meta-analysis, and calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) for sensitivity and specificity, and to rank diagnostic performance using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Subgroup analyses based on sample type and patient status were conducted.

RESULTS

The NMA revealed no statistically significant differences in overall sensitivity (OR = 1.54, 95 % CI [0.47-5.06]) or specificity (OR = 1.29, 95 % CI [0.39-4.28]) between tNGS and mNGS. SUCRA rankings indicated that tNGS had the highest cumulative probability for sensitivity (91.9 %), followed by mNGS (74.6 %), and the cumulative specificity probability of tNGS (37.8 %)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, 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.

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