2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.09.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Though with higher sensitivity, the detection rate of false-positive pathogens (referred to causative or possibly causative pathogens reported by laboratory) by mNGS is also higher. Thus, it is important to distinguish between true-and false-positive pathogens when interpreting mNGS results for physicians [17]. This is often di cult because of limited con rmatory testing, extra cost and insu cient sample volumes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Though with higher sensitivity, the detection rate of false-positive pathogens (referred to causative or possibly causative pathogens reported by laboratory) by mNGS is also higher. Thus, it is important to distinguish between true-and false-positive pathogens when interpreting mNGS results for physicians [17]. This is often di cult because of limited con rmatory testing, extra cost and insu cient sample volumes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, mNGS is currently unable to provide reliable data on antimicrobial sensitivity and resistance, suggesting that the professional ability of the result interpretation team, especially infectious disease expertise, is directly related to the clinical utility of mNGS testing ( 21 ). Establishing a clinical microbial sequencing board or team composed of experienced clinical microbiologists, infectious disease specialists, and treating physicians has been strongly recommended to avoid misinterpretation of mNGS results ( 22 ). Our laboratory has established a stable reporting team for the mNGS assay (described in the Supplementary Methods) and carefully interprets each result through close communication with the treating team.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to the traditional fungal culture, which often takes 3–7 days, mNGS provides rapid pathogen detection in <24 h. However, the current cost of mNGS is higher, ¥3000 Renminbi (approximately US$ 500) per sample, compared to fungal culture, which costs 80 Renminbi (approximately US$ 12). Moreover, the lack of standardized criteria for interpreting mNGS results is a considerable challenge and requires collaborations among clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, and clinical microbiologists [ 40 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%