A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 16S and 18S rRNA gene targeted next-generation sequencing based on five years of clinical experience. | LitMetric

Background: The use of 16S/18S rRNA targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) has improved microbial diagnostics, however, the use of tNGS in a routine clinical setting requires further elucidation. We retrospectively evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 16S/18S tNGS, routinely used in the North Denmark Region between 2017 and 2021.

Methods: We retrieved 544 tNGS results from 491 patients hospitalised with suspected infection (e.g. meningitis, pneumonia, intraabdominal abscess, osteomyelitis and joint infection). The tNGS assays was performed using the Illumina MiSeq desktop sequencer, and BION software for annotation. The patients' diagnosis and clinical management was evaluated by medical chart review. We calculated sensitivity and specificity, and determined the diagnostic accuracy of tNGS by defining results as true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative.

Results: Overall, tNGS had a sensitivity of 56% and a specificity of 97%. tNGS was more frequently true positive compared to culture (32% vs 18%), and tNGS detected a greater variety of bacteria and fungi, and was more frequently polymicrobial. However, the total diagnostic turnaround time was 16 days, and although 73% of tNGS results were true positive or true negative, only 4.4% of results led to changes in clinical management.

Conclusions: As a supplement to culture, tNGS improves identification of pathogenic microorganisms in a broad range of clinical specimens. However, the long turnaround time of tNGS in our setting may have contributed to a limited clinical utility. An improved turnaround time can be the key to improved clinical utility in a future setting.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2023.2241550DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

clinical utility
16
diagnostic accuracy
12
tngs
12
true positive
12
turnaround time
12
clinical
9
accuracy clinical
8
targeted next-generation
8
next-generation sequencing
8
positive true
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!