Evidence Hub

Impact of metagenomic sequencing on clinical outcomes in patients with suspected central nervous system infections: a retrospective case-control study

Wenyan An, Yan-Dong Zhang, Yong Liu, Tian-Shi Yang, Shi-Qi Bai, Pei-Wen Zhou, Junzhuo Si, Yuan Zhao et al.

Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 2025

338 participants

Abstract

Objectives Although the value of metagenomic sequencing (mNGS) in diagnosing pathogens in central nervous system infections (CNSi) has been confirmed, its impact on the clinical outcomes of patients remains to be elucidated. This study intended to investigate the clinical impact of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) mNGS on the outcomes of patients with suspected CNSi. Methods Between January 2022 and July 2024, patients who met both the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and assigned to either the mNGS group (CSF tested by both mNGS and conventional microbiological tests [CMTs]) or the CMT group (CMTs alone). Following this, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline differences. The primary endpoint, time to clinical improvement, was then compared between the two groups and analyzed in stratified subgroups. Secondary endpoints included the rates of clinical improvement at 14 and 30 days, hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and the proportion of GCS score <15. Results A retrospective analysis of 338 patients was conducted, with 169 cases in each group. In the mNGS group, a comparison of diagnostic performance between the two testing methods demonstrated that mNGS yielded a significantly higher positivity rate in patients with CNSi compared to CMTs (67.5% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001), identifying 111 pathogens in total, which was substantially more than the 24 detected by CMTs. Subsequent comparison of clinical outcomes between the groups…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 338 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