A comparative analysis between next-generation sequencing and conventional culture method to detect empyema-associated microorganisms: A systematic review.

Narra J Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-30 DOI:10.52225/narra.v4i1.650
Indra Yovi, Nur A Syah, Dewi Anggraini, Arya M Simanjuntak, Zulfa N Hanifah, Aisyah Elliyanti
{"title":"A comparative analysis between next-generation sequencing and conventional culture method to detect empyema-associated microorganisms: A systematic review.","authors":"Indra Yovi, Nur A Syah, Dewi Anggraini, Arya M Simanjuntak, Zulfa N Hanifah, Aisyah Elliyanti","doi":"10.52225/narra.v4i1.650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Empyema poses a significant global health concern, yet identifying responsible bacteria remains elusive. Recent studies question the efficacy of conventional pleural fluid culture in accurately identifying empyema-causing bacteria. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic capabilities of next-generation sequencing (NGS) with conventional pleural fluid culture in identifying empyema-causing bacteria. Five databases (Google Scholar, Science Direct, Cochrane, Research Gate, and PubMed) were used to search studies comparing conventional pleural fluid culture with NGS for identifying empyema-causing bacteria using keywords. Positive results identified through conventional pleural fluid culture and NGS were extracted. In addition, bacterial profiles identified by NGS were also documented. Joanna-Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was employed to assess quality of included studies. Descriptive analysis was employed to present outcome of interests. From five databases, three studies, with 354 patients, were included. Findings from three studies showed that NGS outperformed conventional pleural fluid culture in detecting empyema-causing bacteria even in culture-negative samples. Moreover, dominant bacterial profiles identified through NGS included <i>Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus</i>, and anaerobic bacteria. In conclusion, NGS outperforms conventional pleural fluid culture in detection empyema-causing bacteria, yet further studies with larger samples and broader bacterial profiles are needed to increase confidence and urgency in its adoption over conventional pleural fluid culture.</p>","PeriodicalId":517416,"journal":{"name":"Narra J","volume":"4 1","pages":"e650"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11125311/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Narra J","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v4i1.650","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Empyema poses a significant global health concern, yet identifying responsible bacteria remains elusive. Recent studies question the efficacy of conventional pleural fluid culture in accurately identifying empyema-causing bacteria. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic capabilities of next-generation sequencing (NGS) with conventional pleural fluid culture in identifying empyema-causing bacteria. Five databases (Google Scholar, Science Direct, Cochrane, Research Gate, and PubMed) were used to search studies comparing conventional pleural fluid culture with NGS for identifying empyema-causing bacteria using keywords. Positive results identified through conventional pleural fluid culture and NGS were extracted. In addition, bacterial profiles identified by NGS were also documented. Joanna-Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was employed to assess quality of included studies. Descriptive analysis was employed to present outcome of interests. From five databases, three studies, with 354 patients, were included. Findings from three studies showed that NGS outperformed conventional pleural fluid culture in detecting empyema-causing bacteria even in culture-negative samples. Moreover, dominant bacterial profiles identified through NGS included Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and anaerobic bacteria. In conclusion, NGS outperforms conventional pleural fluid culture in detection empyema-causing bacteria, yet further studies with larger samples and broader bacterial profiles are needed to increase confidence and urgency in its adoption over conventional pleural fluid culture.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
下一代测序与传统培养法检测肺水肿相关微生物的比较分析:系统综述。
肺水肿是全球关注的重大健康问题,但要找出致病菌仍是一个难题。最近的研究对传统胸腔积液培养法在准确鉴定引起肺水肿的细菌方面的功效提出了质疑。本研究旨在比较下一代测序(NGS)与传统胸腔积液培养在鉴定引起肺水肿的细菌方面的诊断能力。研究人员利用五个数据库(Google Scholar、Science Direct、Cochrane、Research Gate 和 PubMed),使用关键字搜索了传统胸腔积液培养与 NGS 在鉴定肺水肿致病菌方面的比较研究。提取了通过传统胸腔积液培养和 NGS 鉴定出的阳性结果。此外,还记录了 NGS 鉴定出的细菌特征。乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna-Briggs Institute,JBI)的批判性评价工具用于评估纳入研究的质量。采用描述性分析来呈现感兴趣的结果。五个数据库共纳入了三项研究,涉及 354 名患者。三项研究的结果表明,即使在培养阴性的样本中,NGS 在检测引起肺水肿的细菌方面也优于传统的胸腔积液培养。此外,通过 NGS 发现的主要细菌包括肺炎链球菌、金黄色葡萄球菌和厌氧菌。总之,NGS 在检测引起肺水肿的细菌方面优于传统的胸腔积液培养,但还需要对更大的样本和更广泛的细菌谱进行进一步研究,以增强采用 NGS 的信心和紧迫性,使其优于传统的胸腔积液培养。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Determinants of mortality in relationship between clinical and laboratory characteristics with the outcomes of children with diphtheria: A cross-sectional study at a national hospital of Sumatra region in 2020–2023 Determinants of COVID-19 severity and mortality in children: A retrospective and multicenter cohort study in Medan, Indonesia Improving maternal health literacy among low-income pregnant women: A systematic review A fruit fly-based approach to unraveling enteropathy-causing pharmaceuticals. A potential treatment for erectile dysfunction: Effect of platelet-rich plasma administration on axon and collagen regeneration in cavernous nerve injury.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1