Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 18;11:671109. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.671109

Figure 2.

Figure 2

(A) The results of mNGS and conventional tests. (B) Distribution of pathogens identified by mNGS and conventional tests. (C) Comparison of mNGS and conventional methods. (D) The detection rate of the different methods in the two subgroups. In the empirical treatment group, the detection rate of mNGS was significantly higher than that of conventional methods, especially for bacterial infections.