Objective To comparatively evaluate the diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing(mNGS)versus conventional microbial culture in spinal infections.Methods A cross-section design was conducted on 82 consecutive patients with suspected spinal infections treated between February 2022 and January 2024 at Jiangbei Branch of First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University(Third Military Medical University).Microbiological culture,histopathological examination,and mNGS results from infected specimens were analyzed.Clinical diagnosis,primarily based on clinical manifestations,laboratory tests and radiologic features combined with medical history,was defined as the gold standard,and then the diagnostic performance,including sensitivity and specificity,were compared between mNGS and microbial culture.Results Among the 82 patients,definitive microbiological evidence was identified in 70 cases,and mNGS demonstrated a significantly higher detection rate than microbial culture(64 vs 36 cases,78.05％vs 43.9％,P<0.05).mNGS also obtained obviously higher sensitivity,accuracy,and negative predictive value(NPV),and notably lower positive predictive value(PPV)when compared to conventional microbial culture(all P<0.05).When stratified by infection type,mNGS obtained significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy compared to microbial culture in tuberculous spinal infections(P<0.05).For non-tuberculous spinal infections,mNGS also showed superior sensitivity to microbial culture(P<0.05).Conclusion In patients with spinal infections,mNGS demonstrates a significantly higher pathogen detection rate than conventional microbial culture.This technique can provide early and broad-spectrum pathogenic microbiological evidence for spinal infection.

This paper discussed the main point specifically from the three aspects which are the certainty and uncertainty of technological function , the predictability and unpredictability of technological efficiency , and“should do”or“not should do”of technological application .It presented an ethics argument of medical technology clinical admittance restriction and defends the standpoint -what we can do does not mean what we should do , aiming to provide moral theoretical support of ethical review of medical technology application .