Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
Comparative diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional microbial culture in spinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Binyue, Wang Limei, Wang Jing, Qi Dongxu, Zhang Na
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Spinal infections are relatively uncommon but clinically serious conditions that require timely and accurate diagnosis to prevent severe complications. Traditional microbial culture methods remain the gold standard but suffer from low sensitivity and prolonged turnaround times. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool offering broad-spectrum pathogen detection. However, its diagnostic performance in spinal infections remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of mNGS and conventional microbial culture in detecting pathogens in spinal infections.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed up to July 2025. Studies involving suspected spinal infection patients tested by both conventional microbiological methods and metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by two reviewers using standardized tools. Meta-analyses were performed to pool diagnostic accuracy metrics, and publication bias was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies involving 1,353 patients were included after screening 4,132 records. All studies originated from China, with sample sizes ranging from 17 to 301. Quality assessment showed generally high methodological rigor with low risk of bias. Conventional meta-analysis demonstrated that mNGS had significantly better positive agreement (OR = 0.46, p < 0.00001), higher sensitivity (OR = 0.45, p < 0.00001), and superior negative predictive value (OR = 0.36, p < 0.00001) compared to traditional methods, while specificity and positive predictive value were comparable. Diagnostic meta-analysis revealed pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.86 and 0.90, respectively, with an AUC of 0.90, indicating high diagnostic accuracy. Fagan nomogram analysis showed that with a 50% pre-test probability, positive and negative mNGS results corresponded to post-test probabilities of 89% and 13%, respectively. No significant publication bias was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: mNGS exhibits superior sensitivity and overall diagnostic accuracy compared to traditional microbial culture in spinal infections, supporting its use as a valuable complementary diagnostic tool. Further prospective, multicenter studies are warranted to validate these findings and promote standardized clinical implementation.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, identifier CRD420251114975.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of mNGS and conventional microbial culture in detecting pathogens in spinal infections.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed up to July 2025. Studies involving suspected spinal infection patients tested by both conventional microbiological methods and metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by two reviewers using standardized tools. Meta-analyses were performed to pool diagnostic accuracy metrics, and publication bias was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies involving 1,353 patients were included after screening 4,132 records. All studies originated from China, with sample sizes ranging from 17 to 301. Quality assessment showed generally high methodological rigor with low risk of bias. Conventional meta-analysis demonstrated that mNGS had significantly better positive agreement (OR = 0.46, p < 0.00001), higher sensitivity (OR = 0.45, p < 0.00001), and superior negative predictive value (OR = 0.36, p < 0.00001) compared to traditional methods, while specificity and positive predictive value were comparable. Diagnostic meta-analysis revealed pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.86 and 0.90, respectively, with an AUC of 0.90, indicating high diagnostic accuracy. Fagan nomogram analysis showed that with a 50% pre-test probability, positive and negative mNGS results corresponded to post-test probabilities of 89% and 13%, respectively. No significant publication bias was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: mNGS exhibits superior sensitivity and overall diagnostic accuracy compared to traditional microbial culture in spinal infections, supporting its use as a valuable complementary diagnostic tool. Further prospective, multicenter studies are warranted to validate these findings and promote standardized clinical implementation.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, identifier CRD420251114975.