What Is the Accuracy of 16S PCR Followed by Sanger Sequencing or Next-generation Sequencing in Native Vertebral Osteomyelitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Authors: Mahmoud Omar K. , Petri Francesco , El Zein Said , Fida Madiha , Diehn Felix E. , Verdoorn Jared T. , Schuetz Audrey N. , Murad M. Hassan , Nassr Ahmad , Berbari Elie F. 
Published: December 2024

Background
Identifying a microorganism in patients with native vertebral osteomyelitis presents diagnostic challenges. Microorganism identification through culture-based methods is constrained by prolonged processing times and sensitivity limitations. Despite the availability of molecular diagnostic techniques for identifying microorganisms in native vertebral osteomyelitis, there is considerable variability in reported sensitivity and specificity across studies, leading to uncertainty in their clinical utility.

Questions/purposes
What are the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios for 16S broad-range PCR followed by Sanger sequencing (16S) and metagenomic next-generation sequencing (NGS) for detecting bacteria in native vertebral osteomyelitis?

Methods
On June 29, 2023, we searched Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and Scopus for results from January 1970 to June 2023. Included studies involved adult patients with suspected native vertebral osteomyelitis undergoing molecular diagnostics—16S bacterial broad-range PCR followed by Sanger sequencing and shotgun or targeted metagenomic NGS—for bacteria detection. Studies involving nonnative vertebral osteomyelitis and cases of brucellar, tubercular, or fungal etiology were excluded. The reference standard for the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis was a composite clinical- and investigator-defined native vertebral osteomyelitis diagnosis. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a bivariate random-effects model. Risk of bias and diagnostic applicability were evaluated using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. After a manual screening of 3403 studies, 10 studies (5 on 16S, 5 on NGS) were included in the present analysis, from which 391 patients were included from a total of 958 patients overall. Quality assessment via QUADAS-2 criteria showed moderate risk of bias and good applicability.

Results
16S showed 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95% CI 31% to 96%) sensitivity and 94% (95% CI 73% to 99%) specificity, whereas NGS demonstrated 82% (95% CI 63% to 93%) sensitivity and 71% (95% CI 37% to 91%) specificity. In addition, the diagnostic ORs were 59 (95% CI 9 to 388) and 11 (95% CI 4 to 35) for 16S and NGS, respectively. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves showed high test performance for 16S (area under the curve for 16S 95% [95% CI 93% to 97%] and for NGS 89% [95% CI 86% to 92%]). Certainty in estimates was moderate because of sample size limitations.

Conclusion
This meta-analysis found moderate-to-high diagnostic performance of molecular methods on direct patient specimens for the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis. When used as a complementary test to microbiological analyses, a positive 16S result rules in the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis, while further studies are needed to understand the role of NGS in the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis. When available, these tests should be used in addition to conventional microbiology, especially in complex cases with extensively negative standard microbiological test results, to detect fastidious bacteria or to confirm the causative bacteria when their isolation and pathogenicity are unclear. A large sample size is needed in future research to understand the use of these techniques as standalone tests for diagnosis.

Level of Evidence
Level III, diagnostic study.