
==== Front
BMC Infect Dis
BMC Infect Dis
BMC Infectious Diseases
1471-2334
BioMed Central London

39294577
9914
10.1186/s12879-024-09914-9
Systematic Review
Exploring the clinical and diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
He Sike
Liu Haolin
Hu Xu
Zhao Jinge
Liang Jiayu
Zhang Xingming
Chen Junru
Zeng Hao kucaizeng@163.com

Sun Guangxi sungx077@126.com

grid.13291.38 0000 0001 0807 1581 Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
18 9 2024
18 9 2024
2024
24 10003 5 2024
10 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

A new pathogen detection tool, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), has been widely used for infection diagnosis, but the clinical and diagnostic value of mNGS in urinary tract infection (UTI) remains inconclusive. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of mNGS in treating UTIs.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, and eligible studies were selected based on the predetermined criteria. The quality of the included studies was assessed via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool, and the certainty of evidence (CoE) was measured by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) score. Then, the positive detection rate (PDR), pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was estimated in Review Manager, Stata, and MetaDisc. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were performed to reveal the potential factors that influence internal heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 17 studies were selected for further analysis. The PDR of mNGS was markedly greater than that of culture (odds ratio (OR) = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.72–4.81, p < 0.001, I2 = 90%). The GRADE score presented a very low CoE. Then, the pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86–0.91, I2 = 39.65%, p = 0.06), and the pooled specificity was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.51–0.90, I2 = 88.64%, p < 0.001). The AUROC of the studies analyzed was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86–0.92). The GRADE score indicated a low CoE.

Conclusion

The current evidence shows that mNGS has favorable diagnostic performance for UTIs. More high-quality prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are expected to verify these findings and provide more information about mNGS in UTI treatment and prognosis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-024-09914-9.

Keywords

Urinary tract infection
Metagenomic next-generation sequencing
Diagnostic performance
Meta-analysis
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Urinary tract infection (UTI), encompassing a spectrum of infectious syndromes that affect the urinary tract anywhere from the urethra to the kidneys, is one of the most common community- or hospital-acquired infections [1, 2]. Approximately 60% of women are estimated to experience at least one UTI during their lifetime [3]. Furthermore, UTIs have a high recurrence rate ranging from 30 to 50% in women and 12% in men. UTI treatment and management cause a large burden on social healthcare, although the morbidity rate is low [3].

The major microorganisms causing UTIs are bacteria (i.e., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Proteus mirabilis), and some fungi and viruses can also cause UTIs, especially in patients with indwelling catheters, diabetes, recent antibiotic use, or immunosuppression [2, 4, 5]. Precise and rapid pathogen identification is key in UTI treatment. The combination of urinary symptoms and urine culture is the “gold standard” for UTI diagnosis; however, the frustration from culture, including low sensitivity, long testing period, and inconsistent diagnostic threshold, greatly promotes the development of novel diagnostic strategies [2, 6, 7]. A culture-independent tool, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), is an unbiased pathogen detection method that can characterize all DNA or RNA sequences and analyze the entire microbiome, human host genome, and transcriptome in clinical samples. Its advantages, such as high throughput, wide coverage, high accuracy, and efficiency, make it attractive for clinical use [8, 9]. Previous studies have systematically evaluated the clinical and diagnostic value of mNGS in different samples from various clinical scenarios, including blood, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, and synovial fluid [10–13]. In UTIs, mNGS circumvents some of the limitations of conventional urine culture, such as relatively narrow detectable microorganism spectrum and long detection period [14, 15]. mNGS has preliminarily demonstrated potential for diagnosing UTIs with promising efficacy, especially for identifying pathogens that are not cultivable with conventional urine culture [7, 16]. However, an integrated conclusion of mNGS in UTIs has not been reached. Herein, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the clinical and diagnostic value of mNGS for detecting UTIs.

Methods

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines [17]. The protocol has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42024526048. More details can be accessed via https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=526048).

Search strategy and selection criteria

Two researchers (SH and HL) independently performed comprehensive searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 11, 2024. The complete search terms used were as follows: (mNGS OR metagenomic next-generation sequencing OR metagenomic next-generation sequencing OR metagenomic sequencing OR shotgun metagenomic OR next-generation sequencing OR next-generation sequencing OR NGS) AND (urinary tract infection OR UTI OR urinary tract infections OR UTIs OR infection of urinary tract OR infections of urinary tract). The language of the included studies was limited to English.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) were case-control studies or retrospective and prospective cohort studies that reported the clinical value of mNGS for detecting UTIs, including both its diagnostic performance and impact on prognosis; (ii) included a study population consisting of at least 10 patients with UTIs; and (iii) used reference standards such as conventional microbiological tests or clinical diagnosis based on clinical signs/symptoms and laboratory examinations.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) a case report or case series consisting of fewer than 10 participants, a narrative review, a systematic review, and conference abstracts that duplicate original research findings; (ii) studies that did not report direct outcomes; and (iii) studies that did not state the reference standards.

Study outcomes

The primary outcomes included the positive detection rate and diagnostic performance of mNGS. The secondary outcome was the effectiveness of treatment (e.g., antibiotic adjustment and length of hospitalization).

Data extraction

The following data from the individual studies were extracted: (a) basic information, including the first author, publication year, area, type of study, and sample size; (b) the methodological quality, the reference standard for diagnosis of UTI, and the criteria for a positive mNGS result; (c) mNGS sequencing technology, mNGS sequencing method, and mNGS sequencing conditions (sequencing platform, DNA/RNA extraction, and bioinformatics analysis); (d) the positive detection rate (PDR) and diagnostic accuracy measurements (true positive [TP], false positive [FP], false negative [FN], true negative [TN]); and (d) the value of mNGS in treatment. Two researchers (HS and SG) independently extracted the data, and disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by consensus with the third author (ZH).

Study quality evaluation and appraisal of evidence uncertainty

Three researchers (HS, GS, and JZ) independently performed a quality assessment of all included studies, and disagreements were resolved by discussion. The quality of the studies was measured by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool [18] (via Review Manager version 5.3, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration and Copenhagen, 2014). Then, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to measure the certainty of evidence (CoE) (GRADEpro GDT software, https://www.gradepro.org) [19].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 16.0, Review Manager version 5.3, and MetaDiSc version 1.4. For dichotomous variables, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with the Review Manager. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated by a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model by Stata and MetaDiSc, and forest plots were also drawn with two software programs. The heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using the chi-square test and the I2 statistic. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were also plotted for studies reporting sensitivity and specificity, and the results were calculated. To analyze the potential factors that may affect heterogeneity, subgroup analyses, leave-one-out analyses, and meta-regressions were performed according to the continent, study direction, study type, reference standard, and basic condition of the patients. A two-tailed p-value of < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. P < 0.10 or I2 > 50% was considered statistically significant for heterogeneity. Significant heterogeneity was pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Search results and study selection

A total of 1182 records were collected from online databases, and 864 were screened after 324 duplicates were removed. A total of 801 records were excluded based on title and abstract. Then, 57 records were further excluded by full-text review. Finally, 17 studies were selected for the meta-analysis [20–36]. The study selection was performed following the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Flow chart of study retrieval

Characteristics of the studies

Among the 17 included studies, nine were prospective, and eight were retrospective. The sample size ranged from 10 to 1200. Culture was the reference standard in 12 studies [20–26, 30, 31, 33–35], clinical diagnosis was the reference standard in three studies [27, 29, 36], and two studies used both methods [28, 32]. Urine samples were used in 17 studies, and blood samples were tested in one study [26]. For the main outcomes, the PDR was reported by 17 studies, the sensitivity was established by 13 studies [21, 22, 24–29, 31, 32, 34–36], and the specificity was provided by 10 studies [21, 24, 25, 27–29, 31, 32, 35, 36]. Duan et al. and Jia et al. reported ARA rates [23, 28]. More information is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of eligible studies in the meta-analysis

Study	Study design	Study type	Country	Number of sample	Sample type	Reference standard	Sequencing
method	Sequencing platform	Basic condition of patients	Outcome	PDR	DP of mNGS	
	TP	FP	FN	TN	
Almas, 2023	Prospective	Cohort	USA	47	Urine	Culture	DNA	Illumina		PDR	mNGS: 46/47; culture: 33/47	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Barraud, 2019	Retrospective	Cohort	France	40	Urine	Culture	DNA	Ion Proton		PDR, DP	mNGS: 32/40; culture: 36/40	30	2	6	2	
Burnham, 2018	Prospective	Cohort	USA	141	Urine	Culture	DNA	Illumina	Kidney transplant recipients	PDR, DP	mNGS: 78/88; culture: 76/88	66	2	10	0	
Duan, 2022	Prospective	Cohort	China	19	Urine	Culture	DNA	MGISEQ	Kidney transplant recipients	PDR, ABA	mNGS: 19/19; culture: 6/19	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Hasman, 2014	Retrospective	Cohort	Denmark	35	Urine	Culture	DNA	Ion Torrent	Patients with cutaneous ureterostomy	PDR, DP	mNGS: 17/24; culture: 19/25	17	0	2	5	
Huang, 2023	Prospective	Case-control	China	1200	Urine	Culture	DNA	MGISEQ		PDR, DP	mNGS: 339/1200; culture: 81/1200	74	265	7	854	
Ishihara, 2020	Retrospective	Cohort	Japan	10	Urine	Culture	DNA	IonPGM		PDR, DP	mNGS: 9/10; culture: 10/10	7	3	0	0	
	Blood			mNGS: 6/10; culture: 5/10	3	3	1	3	
Janes, 2022	Prospective	Cohort	Netherlands	529	Urine	Clinical diagnosis	DNA	Illumina		PDR, DP	mNGS: 232/529; culture: 158/529	152	80	26	271	
Jia, 2023	Retrospective	Cohort	China	33	Urine	Clinical diagnosis	DNA	Illumina		PDR, DP, ABA	mNGS: 29/33; culture: 10/33	25	4	0	4	
	Culture			10	19	0	4	
Liu, 2023	Retrospective	Cohort	China	845	Urine	Clinical diagnosis	DNA	Nanopore		PDR, DP	mNGS: 676/823; culture: 619/823	666	10	92	55	
Mouraviev, 2018	Retrospective	Cohort	USA	44	Urine	Culture	DNA	Illumina		PDR	mNGS: 44/44; culture: 13/44	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Sabat, 2017	Prospective	Cohort	Netherlands	60	Urine	Culture	DNA	Illumina		PDR, DP	mNGS: 45/60; culture: 39/60	33	12	6	9	
Wang, 2023	Prospective	Cohort	China	213 (training set: 117; validation set: 96)	Urine	Clinical diagnosis	DNA	Nanopore		PDR, DP	mNGS: 59/96; culture: 70/96	65	0	7	24	
	Culture			57	2	13	24	
Wang, 2022	Retrospective	Cohort	China	112	Urine	Culture	DNA	Nanopore	Patients in nephrology department	PDR	mNGS: 95/112; culture: 40/112	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Yoo, 2021	Retrospective	Cohort	Korea	42	Urine	Culture	DNA	Illumina		PDR, DP	mNGS: 29/42; culture: 7/42	7	35	0	0	
Zhang, 2022	Prospective	Cohort	China	76	Urine	Culture	DNA	Illumina		PDR, DP	mNGS: 40/76; culture: 45/76	39	1	6	30	
Zhao, 2024	Prospective		China	48	Urine	Clinical diagnosis	DNA	Nanopore		PDR, DP	mNGS: 23/24; culture: 13/24	17	6	0	1	
Abbreviation PDR: positive detection rate; DP: diagnostic performance (TP, FP, FN, and TN); TP: true positive; FP: false positive; FN: false negative; TN: true negative; NR: not reported

Study quality assessment

The study quality was estimated by the QUADAS-2 tool, and the detailed information is shown in Fig. 2. Most of the studies had a high risk of bias and low applicability concerns. The description of index tests and reference standards contributes most to risk bias, and patient selection and reference standards also impact clinical applicability concerns.

Fig. 2 Quality assessment of the included studies by the QUADAS-2 tool

Positive pathogen detection rate of mNGS versus culture

A total of 17 studies involving 3367 samples measured the PDR of mNGS versus (vs.) culture. The overall PDR of mNGS in urine was 55.46% (1812/3267), which was significantly greater than that of culture (1275/3267, 39.03%) (Fig. 3 and Fig. S1). The meta-analysis revealed that mNGS had greater PDR than did culture (OR = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.72–4.81, p < 0.001, I2 = 90%). The funnel plot did not show obvious publication bias (p = 0.57) (Fig. S2). GRADE score indicated that the CoE was low (Fig. S3). Considering the pathogen types, three studies calculated the PDR of bacteria and fungi, and the PDR of mNGS was greater than that of culture for detecting bacterial infection (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.48–2.02, p < 0.001, I2 = 88%), but the PDR of fungal infection was not significantly greater for mNGS than for culture (OR = 3.49, 95% CI: 0.71–17.15, p = 0.12, I2 = 59%) (Fig. S4A and B) [23, 28, 29].

Fig. 3 Comparison of pathogen detection positive rate between mNGS and culture in urine

Diagnostic performance of mNGS

The sensitivity of mNGS for diagnosing UTIs ranged from 0.81 to 1.00, and the pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86–0.91, I2 = 39.65%, p = 0.06) (Fig. 4A). The specificity ranged from 0.14 to 1.00, and the pooled specificity was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.51–0.90, I2 = 88.64%, p < 0.001) (Fig. 4B). The area under the curve of the sROC curve (AUROC) was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86–0.92) (Fig. 5). Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test did not reveal significant publication bias (Fig. 6, p = 0.90). GRADE score indicated that the CoE was very low (Fig. S5). With respect to the reference standard, the pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85–0.92, I2 = 45.06%, p = 0.12), and the pooled specificity was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.34–0.94, I2 = 86.11%, p < 0.001) when the clinical diagnosis was used as the reference (Fig. S6). The pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83–0.91, I2 = 0.00%, p = 0.52), and the pooled specificity was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.44–0.93, I2 = 94.95%, p < 0.001) when culture was used as the reference (Fig. S7). For both references, the publication bias was not significant (p = 0.52 [clinical diagnosis], p = 0.12 [culture]) (Fig. S8 and S9). The AUROCs of mNGS according to clinical diagnosis and culture are shown in Fig. S10. The PLR, NLR, and DOR of mNGS were also elaborated (Fig. S11-S14). Taken together, the main results of the diagnostic performance of mNGS for UTIs are listed in Table 2.

Fig. 4 Forest plot of pooled sensitivity (A) and specificity (B) of mNGS in UTIs

Fig. 5 The sROC of mNGS diagnosis in UTIs

Fig. 6 Publication bias of diagnostic performance assessed by Deek’s funnel test

Table 2 The summary of the diagnostic performance of mNGS in UTI

Reference standard	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUROC	PLR	NLR	DOR	
Total (clinical diagnosis + culture)	0.89	0.75	0.89	3.03	0.16	26.03	
Clinical diagnosis	0.89	0.73	0.89	3.20	0.15	31.03	
Culture	0.88	0.76	0.88	3.14	0.18	21.54	
Abbreviation AUROC: area under receiver operating curve; PLR: positive likelihood ratio; NLR: negative likelihood ratio; DOR: diagnostic odds ratio

Subgroup analysis

A subgroup analysis was performed on the predefined subgroups to investigate the source of heterogeneity. The studies were divided into five subgroups based on continent, study direction, type of study, reference standard, and the basic condition of the patients (ill or immunocompromised). Among these factors, continent (Asia: 0.91 vs. Non-Asia: 0.87), study direction (retrospective: 0.94 vs. prospective: 0.87), study type (cohort: 0.88 vs. case-control: 0.91), reference standard (culture: 0.88 vs. clinical diagnosis: 0.89), and the basic condition of patients (yes: 0.86 vs. no: 0.89) are all responsible for the heterogeneity of sensitivity (p < 0.001 for all), and the heterogeneity of specificity was influenced only by the basic condition of patients (yes: 1.00 vs. no: 0.72, p < 0.001), and no obvious heterogeneity was observed in the other four subgroups (p > 0.05 for all). More detailed results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Subgroup analysis for the diagnostic performance of mNGS in UTI

Parameter	Subgroup	Number of studies	Sensitivity (95% CI)	I2	p1
(meta-regression)	Specificity (95% CI)	I2	p2
(meta-regression)	
Continent					< 0.001			0.77	
	Asia	8	0.91 (0.87–0.95)	69.08%		0.74 (0.43–0.92)	91.50%		
	Non-Asia	5	0.87 (0.82–0.91)	0.00%		0.68 (0.35-1.00)	81.19%		
Study direction					< 0.001			0.17	
	Retrospective	7	0.94 (0.79–0.99)	78.50%		0.59 (0.31–0.82)	87.75%		
	Prospective	6	0.87

(0.86–0.94)

	2.27%		0.86 (0.55–0.97)	85.08%		
Type of study					< 0.001			0.65	
	Cohort	12	0.88 (0.86–0.91)	43.09%		0.76 (0.48–0.91)	89.68%		
	Case-control	1	0.91 (0.83–0.96)			0.76 (0.74–0.79)			
Reference standard					< 0.001			0.81	
	Culture	10	0.88 (0.83–0.91)	0.00%		0.76 (0.41–0.93)	94.95%		
	Clinical diagnosis	5	0.89 (0.85–0.92)	45.46%		0.73 (0.34–0.94)	86.11%		
Patients were ill or immunocompromised					< 0.001			< 0.001	
	Yes	2	0.86 (0.78–0.94)	0.00%		1.00 (0.48-1.00)			
	No	11	0.89 (0.86–0.92)	55.17%		0.72 (0.47–0.88)	89.54%		
Abbreviation mNGS: metagenomic next-generation sequencing; UTI: urinary tract infection

Sensitivity analysis

The leave-one-out analysis revealed that five studies were the main contributors to heterogeneity in sensitivity; when these studies were excluded separately, the value of heterogeneity changed by more than 10% [24, 28, 29, 34, 35]. Similarly, Jia et al. and Zhao et al. also reported obvious heterogeneity in specificity [28, 36]. Detailed information is displayed in Table S1.

Other clinical outcomes

Antibiotic adjustment results were reported by two studies. Duan et al. indicated that the targeted adjustment rate of antibiotic treatment was 76.9% in culture-negative cases (10/13) according to mNGS, and the rate was 33.3% in culture-positive cases (2/6), indicating no significant difference (p = 0.129) [23]. Jia et al. reported an adjustment rate of 92% (23/25) for patients with a positive clinical diagnosis, while the remaining two patients continued current treatment because the pathogens were already covered by the original antibiotic regimens [28].

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that mNGS had a significantly greater PDR than culture (OR = 2.87). The pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity of mNGS were 0.89 and 0.75, respectively, and the AUROC of 0.89 indicates a favorable diagnostic efficacy. However, the effectiveness of this treatment has been poorly investigated. The meta-regression revealed high heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis identified only a small source of heterogeneity.

The use of mNGS in pathogen detection is not a new concept. Since the first successful diagnosis of neuroleptospirosis by mNGS in 2014, mNGS has become a useful tool for pathogen diagnosis, and it has been proven to have excellent performance, with an AUROC of 0.88 [37, 38]. However, pooled analyses of the efficacy of mNGS in treating UTIs are limited.

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical and diagnostic value of mNGS in UTIs. Similar to previous studies of mNGS in other clinical samples, mNGS in UTIs exhibits satisfactory diagnostic efficacy with an AUROC greater than 0.8 [10–13]. Liu et al. performed the largest meta-analysis to update the diagnostic efficacy of mNGS in infectious disease and the results were similar to those of our study, and the minor differences may be caused by the internal heterogeneity between diverse samples, the number of studies, and the study population. Considering the basic mechanism, the universality of mNGS in different infectious diseases is unsurprising. Our historical report summarizes the current meta-analyses of mNGS, and this present study appraises the value of mNGS in UTIs, which further demonstrates the application of mNGS in common samples [39].

Unlike previous meta-analyses of mNGS, we additionally compared the PDR of mNGS to culture and set the PDR as a primary outcome. It is not surprising that mNGS has a greater PDR than culture because mNGS enables a broad range of pathogens to be identified from culture or directly from clinical samples based on uniquely identifiable DNA and/or RNA sequences instead of depending on special etiology [8]. Culture is influenced by normal bacteria in the body, especially after antibiotic use. UTI patients are often initially treated with antibiotics, which reduces the PDR in culture. mNGS can improve the PDR and is less affected by external factors to achieve a more accurate diagnosis [8, 40]. Wang et al. investigated the performance of mNGS in the nephrology department and showed that mNGS was more efficient than culture for detecting pathogens in UTIs and has the potential to identify pathogens that cannot be characterized by culture, such as complex infections with specific microorganisms or subclinical infections due to early antibiotic use [33]. Furthermore, the risk factors for UTIs, including diabetes, iatrogenic immunosuppression, and an indwelling catheter, imply the importance of UTI screening in special populations that are exposed to risk factors, such as older patients, patients with diabetes, patients after surgery, patients in intensive care units (ICUs), and patients with immunosuppression (i.e., AIDS patients, organ transplant recipients, and patients with autoimmune diseases treated with immunosuppressants) [4, 41–44]. The high PDR makes mNGS capable of UTI screening; however, the economic burden must be carefully considered. Although there was no difference in the PDR for fungal detection between mNGS and culture, this finding is consistent with the preliminary conclusion. Given that our meta-analysis included only three studies, bias may have been caused by Jia et al. [28]. Considering the results of fungal PDR in other meta-analyses and the etiology of UTIs [12, 45], the inconsistency in fungal detection does not impact the robustness of mNGS efficacy or its clinical application. Furthermore, only one study compared the PDR in blood sample, and the difference did not reach statistical significance [26]. Taken together, mNGS in urine, the preferred sample in UTIs is reliable, and its application in blood is potential but needs to be verified on a larger sample.

The diagnostic performance was also satisfactory. Similar to previous meta-analyses of different samples, mNGS showed excellent diagnostic efficacy [10–13]. Undoubtedly, such similarities in multiple clinical samples enhance the extrapolation of mNGS for pathogen diagnosis. The studies reported a sensitivity ≥ 0.80, which guaranteed high pooled sensitivity. However, the specificity reported in each study varied widely. The data from Zhao et al. and Jia et al. significantly decreased the pooled specificity and the final AUROC [28, 36]. Fortunately, the small sample size of these studies limits their reliability, preventing our confidence in the high specificity of mNGS. Overall, the lack of international consensus on the results of mNGS suggests that mNGS tests should be used to evaluate the pathogenicity, epidemiology, and bioinformatics data of microorganisms carefully and should be judged based on the combination of the clinical characteristics of the patients [10].

Subgroup meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the heterogeneity in diagnostic performance. Interestingly, all five grouping factors were recognized as potential sources of heterogeneity. Since culture has a high negative rate, biased results can contribute to heterogeneity. Normally, the use of culture as the reference standard usually leads to lower specificity [12]. However, the specificity is lower when the clinical diagnosis is used as the reference standard, which is inconsistent with the primary viewpoint. This difference could be attributed to the extremely low specificity reported by Zhao et al. [36]. Therefore, the study direction produces heterogeneity in sensitivity. Prospective studies can balance the proportions of uninfected and infected populations according to the inclusion criteria, whereas retrospective studies include mostly infected patients. Additionally, heterogeneity also existed based on study type, although the result were not convincing since there was only one case-control study. The study design is a vital parameter for determining heterogeneity, and the combination of differently designed studies in one meta-analysis may lead to higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy [46]. The basic condition of patients is the sole factor causing significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity and specificity, and this phenomenon has also been found in other studies [10, 12]. In our analysis, although the sensitivity of mNGS in patients in poor condition was lower than that in normal patients, the limited number of studies reduced the reliability of this finding. Guo et al. reported that the clinical presentation in these patients is often atypical, and it is difficult to determine the infection origin and select the most direct specimen for mNGS, which can decrease the sensitivity of mNGS [47]. Moreover, the sensitivity of mNGS in severe pulmonary infection patients in the ICU or patients with weakened immunity was significantly greater than that in non-severe patients. The best clinical utility of mNGS may be for immunocompromised patients, in whom the spectrum of potential pathogens is greater. This is a main signal of the usefulness and attractiveness of mNGS [8, 10]. All the evidence supports that mNGS remains relatively advantageous for patients with poor basic conditions, and more data are needed to prove this opinion. On the continent, differences in mNGS technology availability, clinician proficiency, demographic differences, and pathogen disparities may influence heterogeneity, which needs further validation by international multicenter research [48]. The leave-one-out analysis revealed a small proportion of the heterogeneity, and a large amount of unexplainable heterogeneity still existed. This may be caused by the limited number of samples and the inconsistent diagnostic threshold of mNGS. More studies are necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

Currently, many case reports and original studies have demonstrated the value of mNGS for pathogen diagnosis, but some improvements, such as determining the test threshold, eliminating interference from external nucleic acid fragments, identifying pathogen virulence and drug sensitivity, and optimizing economic benefits, should be considered [11, 49]. The high cost of mNGS and the high incidence of UTIs in low- and middle-income regions are significant barriers to the use of mNGS as a routine diagnostic modality for UTIs [50, 51]. Although the cost of mNGS has dropped sharply since 2014, the average cost ranges from $1,000–2,500 per sample [52]. Another study mentioned that the cost of mNGS is significantly greater than that of any other traditional test [53]. Although the cost-effectiveness of mNGS is sometimes attractive, mNGS is still a complementary approach after the failure of traditional tests, and such a combination is reliable [48]. Some efforts have been made to decrease the cost, including optimizing sequencing procedures, accelerating technological innovation, and encouraging more high-quality sequencing platforms to participate in market competition, and widespread popularization is expected [54].

There are several strengths in the present study. First, this is the first meta-analysis that estimates the clinical and diagnostic value of mNGS in UTIs to fill this gap, further indicating its application value in different clinical backgrounds and reinforcing the universality of mNGS in pathogen diagnosis. Then, the PDR was calculated as a primary outcome to determine the diagnostic performance of mNGS rather than sensitivity or specificity alone. In addition, we suggest that the high PDR makes mNGS potential for use in UTI screening in high-risk populations. Moreover, the different cohort data based on culture and clinical diagnosis from Jia et al. and Wang et al. were separately extracted and included in the meta-analysis, maximizing the sample size and guaranteeing the quality of the evidence. Finally, the CoE assessment was performed by the GRADE score to enhance the reliability of this meta-analysis and offer more information for use in clinical practice.

Some limitations should be acknowledged. Although meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were employed to reveal heterogeneity, some heterogeneity could not be well explained. The included studies were not prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Third, the findings concerning mNGS in terms of treatment effectiveness are insufficient, and conclusions for clinical practice have not been reached.

This study elucidates the clinical and diagnostic value of mNGS in UTIs and proves that mNGS is meaningful in UTIs and has similar efficacy in different clinical backgrounds, increasing the confidence for the wider use of mNGS in the future. Owing to the power of mNGS, early pathogen detection, the accurate and precise treatment could be provided for patients to obtain better prognosis, which is inspiring in the era of precision medicine. The role of mNGS in infectious diseases is pivotal and we envisage that mNGS will become a key tool in the field of infectious disease diagnosis in the next decade.

Conclusion

mNGS has a much greater PDR than conventional culture and excellent diagnostic performance for UTIs. More large-size RCTs are vital to support our findings and provide more data about the treatment value of mNGS. The application of mNGS technology still has several limitations, such as cost and the determination of a positive test threshold, but we still believe that the improvement of mNGS will facilitate its utilization in treating UTIs.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Abbreviations

mNGS Metagenomic next-generation sequencing

UTI Urinary tract infection

QUADAS-2 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2

CoE Certainty of evidence

GRADE Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations

PDR Positive detection rate

PLR Positive likelihood ratio

NLR Negative likelihood ratio

DOR Diagnostic odds ratio

AUROC Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

OR Odds ratio

CI Confidence interval

RCT Randomized controlled trial

PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

TP True positive

FP False positive

FN False negative

TN True negative

sROC Summary receiver operating characteristic

ICU Intensive care unit

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the authors of the included studies for their effort in our meta-analysis. In particular, we are grateful to Dr. Yuhui Chen from the Department of Hematology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Dr. Xin Wu from the School of Economics, Nankai University, for their devoted help in data extraction and statistical analysis.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Sike He, Xu Hu, and Jiayu Liang. Tables, figures were prepared by Haolin Liu, Xingming Zhang. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sike He, Haolin Liu, Jinge Zhao and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Junru Chen, Hao Zeng, and Guangxi Sun reviewed the final version. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Sike He and Haolin Liu contributed equally to this work and share the first authorship.
==== Refs
References

1. Al Lawati H Blair BM Larnard J Urinary tract infections: Core Curriculum 2024 Am J Kidney Dis 2024 83 90 100 10.1053/j.ajkd.2023.08.009 37906240
Al Lawati H, Blair BM, Larnard J. Urinary tract infections: Core Curriculum 2024. Am J Kidney Dis. 2024;83:90–100.37906240
2. Foxman B The epidemiology of urinary tract infection Nat Rev Urol 2010 7 653 60 10.1038/nrurol.2010.190 21139641
Foxman B. The epidemiology of urinary tract infection. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:653–60.21139641
3. Medina M Castillo-Pino E An introduction to the epidemiology and burden of urinary tract infections Ther Adv Urol 2019 11 1756287219832172 10.1177/1756287219832172 31105774
Medina M, Castillo-Pino E. An introduction to the epidemiology and burden of urinary tract infections. Ther Adv Urol. 2019;11:1756287219832172.31105774
4. McLellan LK Hunstad DA Urinary tract infection: Pathogenesis and Outlook Trends Mol Med 2016 22 946 57 10.1016/j.molmed.2016.09.003 27692880
McLellan LK, Hunstad DA. Urinary tract infection: Pathogenesis and Outlook. Trends Mol Med. 2016;22:946–57.27692880
5. Paduch DA Viral lower urinary tract infections Curr Urol Rep 2007 8 324 35 10.1007/s11934-007-0080-y 18519018
Paduch DA. Viral lower urinary tract infections. Curr Urol Rep. 2007;8:324–35.18519018
6. Davenport M Mach KE Shortliffe LMD Banaei N Wang T-H Liao JC New and developing diagnostic technologies for urinary tract infections Nat Rev Urol 2017 14 296 310 10.1038/nrurol.2017.20 28248946
Davenport M, Mach KE, Shortliffe LMD, Banaei N, Wang T-H, Liao JC. New and developing diagnostic technologies for urinary tract infections. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14:296–310.28248946
7. Szlachta-McGinn A Douglass KM Chung UYR Jackson NJ Nickel JC Ackerman AL Molecular Diagnostic methods Versus Conventional urine culture for diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infection: a systematic review and Meta-analysis Eur Urol Open Sci 2022 44 113 24 10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.009 36093322
Szlachta-McGinn A, Douglass KM, Chung UYR, Jackson NJ, Nickel JC, Ackerman AL. Molecular Diagnostic methods Versus Conventional urine culture for diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infection: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;44:113–24.36093322
8. Chiu CY Miller SA Clinical metagenomics Nat Rev Genet 2019 20 341 55 10.1038/s41576-019-0113-7 30918369
Chiu CY, Miller SA. Clinical metagenomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2019;20:341–55.30918369
9. Simner PJ Miller S Carroll KC Understanding the promises and hurdles of Metagenomic Next-Generation sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool for Infectious diseases Clin Infect Dis 2018 66 778 88 10.1093/cid/cix881 29040428
Simner PJ, Miller S, Carroll KC. Understanding the promises and hurdles of Metagenomic Next-Generation sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool for Infectious diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:778–88.29040428
10. Chen S Kang Y Li D Li Z Diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the detection of pathogens in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in patients with pulmonary infections: systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Infect Dis 2022 122 867 73 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.07.054 35907477
Chen S, Kang Y, Li D, Li Z. Diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the detection of pathogens in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in patients with pulmonary infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;122:867–73.35907477
11. He S Xiong Y Tu T Feng J Fu Y Hu X Diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the detection of pathogens in cerebrospinal fluid in pediatric patients with central nervous system infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Infect Dis 2024 24 103 10.1186/s12879-024-09010-y 38238719
He S, Xiong Y, Tu T, Feng J, Fu Y, Hu X, et al. Diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the detection of pathogens in cerebrospinal fluid in pediatric patients with central nervous system infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2024;24:103.38238719
12. Chen Y Wang J Niu T Clinical and diagnostic values of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for infection in hematology patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Infect Dis 2024 24 167 10.1186/s12879-024-09073-x 38326763
Chen Y, Wang J, Niu T. Clinical and diagnostic values of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for infection in hematology patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2024;24:167.38326763
13. Tan J Liu Y Ehnert S Nüssler AK Yu Y Xu J The effectiveness of Metagenomic Next-Generation sequencing in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and Meta-analysis Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2022 12 875822 10.3389/fcimb.2022.875822 35755833
Tan J, Liu Y, Ehnert S, Nüssler AK, Yu Y, Xu J, et al. The effectiveness of Metagenomic Next-Generation sequencing in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:875822.35755833
14. Perez-Carrasco V Soriano-Lerma A Soriano M Gutiérrez-Fernández J Garcia-Salcedo JA Urinary microbiome: Yin and Yang of the urinary tract Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2021 11 617002 10.3389/fcimb.2021.617002 34084752
Perez-Carrasco V, Soriano-Lerma A, Soriano M, Gutiérrez-Fernández J, Garcia-Salcedo JA. Urinary microbiome: Yin and Yang of the urinary tract. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:617002.34084752
15. Wolfe AJ Toh E Shibata N Rong R Kenton K Fitzgerald M Evidence of uncultivated bacteria in the adult female bladder J Clin Microbiol 2012 50 1376 83 10.1128/JCM.05852-11 22278835
Wolfe AJ, Toh E, Shibata N, Rong R, Kenton K, Fitzgerald M, et al. Evidence of uncultivated bacteria in the adult female bladder. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:1376–83.22278835
16. Dixon M Stefil M McDonald M Bjerklund-Johansen TE Naber K Wagenlehner F Metagenomics in diagnosis and improved targeted treatment of UTI World J Urol 2020 38 35 43 10.1007/s00345-019-02731-9 30944967
Dixon M, Stefil M, McDonald M, Bjerklund-Johansen TE, Naber K, Wagenlehner F, et al. Metagenomics in diagnosis and improved targeted treatment of UTI. World J Urol. 2020;38:35–43.30944967
17. Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement Int J Surg 2010 8 336 41 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 20171303
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41.20171303
18. Whiting PF QUADAS-2: a revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy studies Ann Intern Med 2011 155 529 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 22007046
Whiting PF. QUADAS-2: a revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529.22007046
19. Guyatt GH Oxman AD Vist GE Kunz R Falck-Ytter Y Alonso-Coello P GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ 2008 336 924 6 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD 18436948
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.18436948
20. Almas S Carpenter RE Rowan C Tamrakar VK Bishop J Sharma R Advantage of precision metagenomics for urinary tract infection diagnostics Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2023 13 1221289 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1221289 37469596
Almas S, Carpenter RE, Rowan C, Tamrakar VK, Bishop J, Sharma R. Advantage of precision metagenomics for urinary tract infection diagnostics. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1221289.37469596
21. Barraud O Ravry C François B Daix T Ploy M-C Vignon P Shotgun metagenomics for microbiome and resistome detection in septic patients with urinary tract infection Int J Antimicrob Agents 2019 54 803 8 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.09.009 31536754
Barraud O, Ravry C, François B, Daix T, Ploy M-C, Vignon P. Shotgun metagenomics for microbiome and resistome detection in septic patients with urinary tract infection. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;54:803–8.31536754
22. Burnham P Dadhania D Heyang M Chen F Westblade LF Suthanthiran M Urinary cell-free DNA is a versatile analyte for monitoring infections of the urinary tract Nat Commun 2018 9 2412 10.1038/s41467-018-04745-0 29925834
Burnham P, Dadhania D, Heyang M, Chen F, Westblade LF, Suthanthiran M, et al. Urinary cell-free DNA is a versatile analyte for monitoring infections of the urinary tract. Nat Commun. 2018;9:2412.29925834
23. Duan W Yang Y Zhao J Yan T Tian X Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis and treatment of recurrent urinary tract infection in kidney transplant recipients Front Public Health 2022 10 901549 10.3389/fpubh.2022.901549 36072369
Duan W, Yang Y, Zhao J, Yan T, Tian X. Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis and treatment of recurrent urinary tract infection in kidney transplant recipients. Front Public Health. 2022;10:901549.36072369
24. Hasman H Saputra D Sicheritz-Ponten T Lund O Svendsen CA Frimodt-Møller N Rapid Whole-Genome sequencing for detection and characterization of microorganisms directly from clinical samples J Clin Microbiol 2014 52 139 46 10.1128/JCM.02452-13 24172157
Hasman H, Saputra D, Sicheritz-Ponten T, Lund O, Svendsen CA, Frimodt-Møller N, et al. Rapid Whole-Genome sequencing for detection and characterization of microorganisms directly from clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52:139–46.24172157
25. Huang R Yuan Q Gao J Liu Y Jin X Tang L Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in patients undergoing cutaneous ureterostomy Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2023 13 991011 10.3389/fcimb.2023.991011 36779185
Huang R, Yuan Q, Gao J, Liu Y, Jin X, Tang L, et al. Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in patients undergoing cutaneous ureterostomy. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:991011.36779185
26. Ishihara T Watanabe N Inoue S Aoki H Tsuji T Yamamoto B Usefulness of next-generation DNA sequencing for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection DD&T 2020 14 42 9 10.5582/ddt.2020.01000
Ishihara T, Watanabe N, Inoue S, Aoki H, Tsuji T, Yamamoto B, et al. Usefulness of next-generation DNA sequencing for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection. DD&T. 2020;14:42–9.
27. Janes VA Matamoros S Munk P Clausen PTLC Koekkoek SM Koster LAM Metagenomic DNA sequencing for semi-quantitative pathogen detection from urine: a prospective, laboratory-based, proof-of-concept study Lancet Microbe 2022 3 e588 97 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00088-X 35688170
Janes VA, Matamoros S, Munk P, Clausen PTLC, Koekkoek SM, Koster LAM, et al. Metagenomic DNA sequencing for semi-quantitative pathogen detection from urine: a prospective, laboratory-based, proof-of-concept study. Lancet Microbe. 2022;3:e588–97.35688170
28. Jia K Huang S Shen C Li H Zhang Z Wang L Enhancing urinary tract infection diagnosis for negative culture patients with metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2023 13 1119020 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1119020 36936777
Jia K, Huang S, Shen C, Li H, Zhang Z, Wang L, et al. Enhancing urinary tract infection diagnosis for negative culture patients with metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS). Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1119020.36936777
29. Liu M Yang S Wu S Chen L Li S Li Z Detection of pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes directly from urine samples in patients suspected of urinary tract infection by metagenomics nanopore sequencing: a large-scale multi‐centre study Clin Translational Med 2023 13 e824 10.1002/ctm2.824
Liu M, Yang S, Wu S, Chen L, Li S, Li Z, et al. Detection of pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes directly from urine samples in patients suspected of urinary tract infection by metagenomics nanopore sequencing: a large-scale multi‐centre study. Clin Translational Med. 2023;13:e824.
30. Mouraviev V, McDonald M. An implementation of next generation sequencing for prevention and diagnosis of urinary tract infection in urology. Can J Urol. 2018.
31. Sabat AJ Van Zanten E Akkerboom V Wisselink G Van Slochteren K De Boer RF Targeted next-generation sequencing of the 16S-23S rRNA region for culture-independent bacterial identification - increased discrimination of closely related species Sci Rep 2017 7 3434 10.1038/s41598-017-03458-6 28611406
Sabat AJ, Van Zanten E, Akkerboom V, Wisselink G, Van Slochteren K, De Boer RF, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing of the 16S-23S rRNA region for culture-independent bacterial identification - increased discrimination of closely related species. Sci Rep. 2017;7:3434.28611406
32. Wang Y Chen T Zhang S Zhang L Li Q Lv Q Clinical evaluation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in unbiased pathogen diagnosis of urinary tract infection J Transl Med 2023 21 762 10.1186/s12967-023-04562-0 37891586
Wang Y, Chen T, Zhang S, Zhang L, Li Q, Lv Q, et al. Clinical evaluation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in unbiased pathogen diagnosis of urinary tract infection. J Transl Med. 2023;21:762.37891586
33. Wang Y Hu X Yang L Chen C Cheng H Hu H Application of high-throughput sequencing technology in the Pathogen Identification of Diverse Infectious diseases in Nephrology Departments Diagnostics 2022 12 2128 10.3390/diagnostics12092128 36140529
Wang Y, Hu X, Yang L, Chen C, Cheng H, Hu H, et al. Application of high-throughput sequencing technology in the Pathogen Identification of Diverse Infectious diseases in Nephrology Departments. Diagnostics. 2022;12:2128.36140529
34. Yoo J-J Shin H Song J Kim M Yun J Kim Z Urinary microbiome characteristics in female patients with Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis and Recurrent Cystitis JCM 2021 10 1097 10.3390/jcm10051097 33807946
Yoo J-J, Shin H, Song J, Kim M, Yun J, Kim Z, et al. Urinary microbiome characteristics in female patients with Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis and Recurrent Cystitis. JCM. 2021;10:1097.33807946
35. Zhang L Huang W Zhang S Li Q Wang Y Chen T Rapid Detection of Bacterial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance genes in clinical urine samples with urinary tract infection by Metagenomic Nanopore Sequencing Front Microbiol 2022 13 858777 10.3389/fmicb.2022.858777 35655992
Zhang L, Huang W, Zhang S, Li Q, Wang Y, Chen T, et al. Rapid Detection of Bacterial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance genes in clinical urine samples with urinary tract infection by Metagenomic Nanopore Sequencing. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:858777.35655992
36. Zhao M Zhang Y Chen L Yan X Xu T Fu M Nanopore sequencing of infectious fluid is a promising supplement for gold-standard culture in real-world clinical scenario Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2024 14 1330788 10.3389/fcimb.2024.1330788 38352054
Zhao M, Zhang Y, Chen L, Yan X, Xu T, Fu M, et al. Nanopore sequencing of infectious fluid is a promising supplement for gold-standard culture in real-world clinical scenario. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2024;14:1330788.38352054
37. Wilson MR Naccache SN Samayoa E Biagtan M Bashir H Yu G Actionable diagnosis of neuroleptospirosis by next-generation sequencing N Engl J Med 2014 370 2408 17 10.1056/NEJMoa1401268 24896819
Wilson MR, Naccache SN, Samayoa E, Biagtan M, Bashir H, Yu G, et al. Actionable diagnosis of neuroleptospirosis by next-generation sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2408–17.24896819
38. Liu Y, Qin S, Lan C, Huang Q, Zhang P, Cao W. Effectiveness of Metagenomic Next-Generation sequencing in the diagnosis of infectious diseases: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2024;:106996.
39. He S Zeng H Comment on an umbrella review of the diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing in infectious diseases: appealing results, but caution is still necessary Int J Clin Pharm 2024 46 996 7 10.1007/s11096-024-01764-4 38896392
He S, Zeng H. Comment on an umbrella review of the diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing in infectious diseases: appealing results, but caution is still necessary. Int J Clin Pharm. 2024;46:996–7.38896392
40. Gu W Miller S Chiu CY Clinical metagenomic next-generation sequencing for Pathogen Detection Annu Rev Pathol 2019 14 319 38 10.1146/annurev-pathmechdis-012418-012751 30355154
Gu W, Miller S, Chiu CY. Clinical metagenomic next-generation sequencing for Pathogen Detection. Annu Rev Pathol. 2019;14:319–38.30355154
41. Rowe TA Juthani-Mehta M Diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection in older adults Infect Dis Clin North Am 2014 28 75 89 10.1016/j.idc.2013.10.004 24484576
Rowe TA, Juthani-Mehta M. Diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection in older adults. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2014;28:75–89.24484576
42. Tandogdu Z Cai T Koves B Wagenlehner F Bjerklund-Johansen TE Urinary tract infections in immunocompromised patients with diabetes, chronic kidney Disease, and kidney transplant Eur Urol Focus 2016 2 394 9 10.1016/j.euf.2016.08.006 28723471
Tandogdu Z, Cai T, Koves B, Wagenlehner F, Bjerklund-Johansen TE. Urinary tract infections in immunocompromised patients with diabetes, chronic kidney Disease, and kidney transplant. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2:394–9.28723471
43. Pokrzywa CJ Papageorge CM Kennedy GD Preoperative urinary tract infection increases postoperative morbidity J Surg Res 2016 205 213 20 10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.025 27621022
Pokrzywa CJ, Papageorge CM, Kennedy GD. Preoperative urinary tract infection increases postoperative morbidity. J Surg Res. 2016;205:213–20.27621022
44. Bagshaw SM Laupland KB Epidemiology of intensive care unit-acquired urinary tract infections Curr Opin Infect Dis 2006 19 67 71 10.1097/01.qco.0000200292.37909.e0 16374221
Bagshaw SM, Laupland KB. Epidemiology of intensive care unit-acquired urinary tract infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2006;19:67–71.16374221
45. Lv M Zhu C Zhu C Yao J Xie L Zhang C Clinical values of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in patients with severe pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2023 13 1106859 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1106859 37091676
Lv M, Zhu C, Zhu C, Yao J, Xie L, Zhang C, et al. Clinical values of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in patients with severe pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1106859.37091676
46. Parker LA Saez NG Porta M Hernández-Aguado I Lumbreras B The impact of including different study designs in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies Eur J Epidemiol 2013 28 713 20 10.1007/s10654-012-9756-9 23269612
Parker LA, Saez NG, Porta M, Hernández-Aguado I, Lumbreras B. The impact of including different study designs in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2013;28:713–20.23269612
47. Guo F Kang L Zhang L mNGS for identifying pathogens in febrile neutropenic children with hematological diseases Int J Infect Dis 2022 116 85 90 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.335 34929357
Guo F, Kang L, Zhang L. mNGS for identifying pathogens in febrile neutropenic children with hematological diseases. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;116:85–90.34929357
48. Qu C Chen Y Ouyang Y Huang W Liu F Yan L Metagenomics next-generation sequencing for the diagnosis of central nervous system infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis Front Neurol 2022 13 989280 10.3389/fneur.2022.989280 36203993
Qu C, Chen Y, Ouyang Y, Huang W, Liu F, Yan L, et al. Metagenomics next-generation sequencing for the diagnosis of central nervous system infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neurol. 2022;13:989280.36203993
49. Miller S Naccache SN Samayoa E Messacar K Arevalo S Federman S Laboratory validation of a clinical metagenomic sequencing assay for pathogen detection in cerebrospinal fluid Genome Res 2019 29 831 42 10.1101/gr.238170.118 30992304
Miller S, Naccache SN, Samayoa E, Messacar K, Arevalo S, Federman S, et al. Laboratory validation of a clinical metagenomic sequencing assay for pathogen detection in cerebrospinal fluid. Genome Res. 2019;29:831–42.30992304
50. Asmare Z, Erkihun M, Abebe W, Ashagre A, Misganaw T, Feleke SF. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Dis Health. 2024;:S2468-0451(24)00006 – 3.
51. Rosenthal VD Yin R Abbo LM Lee BH Rodrigues C Myatra SN An international prospective study of INICC analyzing the incidence and risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infections in 235 ICUs across 8 Asian countries Am J Infect Control 2024 52 54 60 10.1016/j.ajic.2023.07.007 37499758
Rosenthal VD, Yin R, Abbo LM, Lee BH, Rodrigues C, Myatra SN, et al. An international prospective study of INICC analyzing the incidence and risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infections in 235 ICUs across 8 Asian countries. Am J Infect Control. 2024;52:54–60.37499758
52. Diao Z Han D Zhang R Li J Metagenomics next-generation sequencing tests take the stage in the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections J Adv Res 2022 38 201 12 10.1016/j.jare.2021.09.012 35572406
Diao Z, Han D, Zhang R, Li J. Metagenomics next-generation sequencing tests take the stage in the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections. J Adv Res. 2022;38:201–12.35572406
53. Miao Q Ma Y Wang Q Pan J Zhang Y Jin W Microbiological Diagnostic performance of Metagenomic Next-generation sequencing when Applied to Clinical Practice Clin Infect Dis 2018 67 suppl2 S231 40 10.1093/cid/ciy693 30423048
Miao Q, Ma Y, Wang Q, Pan J, Zhang Y, Jin W, et al. Microbiological Diagnostic performance of Metagenomic Next-generation sequencing when Applied to Clinical Practice. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67 suppl2:S231–40.30423048
54. Han D Li Z Li R Tan P Zhang R Li J mNGS in clinical microbiology laboratories: on the road to maturity Crit Rev Microbiol 2019 45 668 85 10.1080/1040841X.2019.1681933 31691607
Han D, Li Z, Li R, Tan P, Zhang R, Li J. mNGS in clinical microbiology laboratories: on the road to maturity. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2019;45:668–85.31691607
