Evidence Hub

Clinical values of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in patients with severe pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Minjie Lv, Chang-Jun Zhu, Cheng-Hua Zhu, Jing Yao, Lixu Xie, Changwen Zhang, Jian-Ling Huang, Xing-Ran Du et al.

Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 2023

3,220 participants · 37 citations

Abstract

Background Clinical values of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in patients with severe pneumonia remain controversial. Therefore, we conduct this meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of mNGS for pathogen detection and its role in the prognosis of severe pneumonia. Methods We systematically searched the literature published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Clinical Trials.gov, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and CBM from the inception to the 28th September 2022. Relevant trials comparing mNGS with conventional methods applied to patients with severe pneumonia were included. The primary outcomes of this study were the pathogen-positive rate, the 28-day mortality, and the 90-day mortality; secondary outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of hospital stay, and the length of stay in the ICU. Results Totally, 24 publications with 3220 patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in this study. Compared with conventional methods (45.78%, 705/1540), mNGS (80.48%, 1233/1532) significantly increased the positive rate of pathogen detection [OR = 6.81, 95% CI (4.59, 10.11, P < 0.001]. The pooled 28-day and 90-day mortality in mNGS group were 15.08% (38/252) and 22.36% (36/161), respectively, which were significantly lower than those in conventional methods group 33.05% (117/354) [OR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.23, 0.55), P < 0.001, I2 = 0%] and 43.43%(109/251) [OR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.21, 0.54), P < 0.001]. Meanwhile,…

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. Reported size: 3,220 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