Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

mNGS in clinical microbiology laboratories: on the road to maturity

Han, Dongsheng, Li, Ziyang, Li, Rui, Tan, Ping, Zhang, Rui, Li, Jinming·2019·Critical Reviews in Microbiology

Abstract

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is increasingly being applied in clinical laboratories for unbiased culture-independent diagnosis. Whether it can be a next routine pathogen identification tool has become a topic of concern. We review the current implementation of this new technology for infectious disease diagnostics and discuss the feasibility of transforming mNGS into a routine diagnostic test. Since 2008, numerous studies from over 20 countries have revealed the practicality of mNGS in the work-up of undiagnosed infectious diseases. mNGS performs well in identifying rare, novel, difficult-to-detect and coinfected pathogens directly from clinical samples and presents great potential in resistance prediction by sequencing the antibiotic resistance genes, providing new diagnostic evidence that can be used to guide treatment options and improve antibiotic stewardship. Many physicians recognized mNGS as a last resort method to address clinical infection problems. Although several hurdles, such as workflow validation, quality control, method standardisation, and data interpretation, remain before mNGS can be implemented routinely in clinical laboratories, they are temporary and can be overcome by rapidly evolving technologies. With more validated workflows, lower cost and turnaround time, and simplified interpretation criteria, mNGS will be widely accepted in clinical practice. Overall, mNGS is transforming the landscape of clinical microbiology laboratories, and to ensure that it is properly utilised in clinical diagnosis, both physicians and microbiologists should have a thorough understanding of the power and limitations of this method.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1040841x.2019.1681933

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 108 references

Cited by

See all 361

Metadata

Authors
Han, D., Li, Z., Li, R., Tan, P., Zhang, R., & Li, J.
Venue
Critical Reviews in Microbiology
Published
2019-11-02
Volume
45
Issue
5-6
Pages
668-685
ISSN
  • 1040-841X (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-7828
OpenAlex
W2982825545
Cited by
361
References
108
FWCI
14.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: mNGS in clinical microbiology laboratories: on the road to maturity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1040841x.2019.1681933
The paper
Han, D., Li, Z., Li, R., Tan, P., Zhang, R., & Li, J. (2019). mNGS in clinical microbiology laboratories: on the road to maturity. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040841x.2019.1681933

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.