Evidence Hub

The clinical value of mNGS of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid versus traditional microbiological tests for pathogen identification and prognosis of severe pneumonia (NT-BALF):study protocol for a prospective multi-center randomized clinical trial

Xiao Song, Hui Jiang, Liang Zong, Di Shi, Hua-Dong Zhu

Trials, 2024

192 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background Early, rapid, and accurate pathogen diagnosis can help clinicians select targeted treatment options, thus improving prognosis and reducing mortality rates of severe pneumonia. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has a higher sensitivity and broader pathogen spectrum than traditional microbiological tests. However, the effects of mNGS-based antimicrobial treatment procedures on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in patients with severe pneumonia have not been evaluated. Methods This is a regional, multi-center, open, prospective, randomized controlled trial to evaluate that whether the combination of mNGS and traditional testing methods could decrease 28-day call-cause mortality with moderate cost-effectiveness. A total of 192 patients with severe pneumonia will be recruited from four large tertiary hospitals in China. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid will be obtained in all patients and randomly assigned to the study group (mNGS combined with traditional microbiological tests) or the control group (traditional microbiological tests only) in a 1:1 ratio. Individualized antimicrobial treatment and strategy will be selected according to the analysis results. The primary outcome is 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days and ICU-free days, consistency between mNGS and traditional microbiological tests, detective rate of mNGS and traditional microbiological tests, turn-out time, time…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 192 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