. 2022 Dec 7;13:1018938. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1018938

Table 2.

Performance of mNGS and conventional detection methods in patients with spinal infection.

Methods	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	p value	p value
Methods	(%, N, 95% CI)	(%, N, 95% CI)	(%, N, 95% CI)	(%, N, 95% CI)	(sensitivity)	(specificity)
mNGS	89.0% (81/91)	88.9% (8/9)	98.8% (81/82)	44.4% (8/18)	–	–
mNGS	(83–96)	(52–100)	(96–101)	(22–69)	–	–
Culture	28.1% (25/89)	100.0% (6/6)	100.0% (25/25)	8.6% (6/70)	χ² = 68.997	p = 1.000^a
Culture	(19–38)	(54–100)	(86–100)	(2–15)	p < 0.001^a	p = 1.000^a
Pathological examination	42.9% (30/70)	100.0% (9/9)	100.0% (30/30)	18.4% (9/49)	χ² = 39.636	p = 1.000^b
Pathological examination	(31–55)	(66–100)	(88–100)	(9–32)	p < 0.001^b	p = 1.000^b

N: number of patients, PPV: positive predictive value, NPV: negative predictive value, CI: confidence interval, a: mNGS vs. culture.

: mNGS vs. Pathological examination.